JUDGMENT :- This is a suit by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a vacant plot of land being the northern portion of premises No. 235/1, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was a tenant in respect of the said plot of land for a term of 15 years ending on 30th June 1947 at a rent of Rs. 20 per month. By a letter dated 25th April 1947, the plaintiffs called upon the defendant to give vacant possession on the expiry of the month of June 1947. It is also alleged in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 60 was due and payable by the defendant on account of rent for three months from April to June 1947.

2. The defendant filed his written statement and he took a number of points in defence, Mr. Gouri Mitter who appeared for the defendant has abandoned all these points taken in the written statement and has argued only one point before me and that is a point arising under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, to which I will refer later or in the judgment.

3. On behalf of the defendant he has admitted the lease dated 1st July 1932, between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the letter, dated 25th April 1947. These two documents are to be found in the admitted brief of correspondence which has been marked by consent as Ex. A in this suit. For purposes of this suit Mr. Gouri Mitter for the defendant has admitted the facts stated in the plaint.

4. Mr. Mitter contends that the defendant comes within the scope of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 and this Court has no jurisdiction to determine this suit having regard to S. 29 of that Act. He relies on S. 2 (5) of the Act which defines thika tenant in the following terms :

"Thika tenant" means any person who under the system commonly known as "Thika", "Thika masik uttandi," "Thika masik", "Thika bastu" or under any other like system holds, whether under a written lease or otherwise, or has been recorded in any record-of-rights as holding, under the title "dakhal basalkar" or other like appellation, land under another person and is, or but for a special contract would be liable to pay rent, at a monthly or at any other periodical rate, for that land to such other person and has created any structure on such land for a residential, manufacturing or business purpose and includes the successors in interest of such person.

5. Mr. Mitters argument is based on the two expressions "or under any other like system" and "whether under a written lease or other, wise". It is not his contention that the defendant is a thika tenant in the sense that he could be called as "thika" or "thika masik utbandi" or "thika masik" or "thika bastu" what he contends is this that having held over after the expiry of the lease which I have mentioned, the defendant should be treated as holding the laud within the meaning of the expression "under any other like system." He further points out that the fact of there having been a written lease does not alter the situation because of the words "whether under a written lease or otherwise."

6. Mr. Mitter contends that so far as the definition of "thika tenant" is concerned the Ordinance and the Act are more or less in similar terms, and that his construction of the definition section should be accepted.

7. I cannot accept his construction of S. 2(6), Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 or S. 2, Calcutta Thika Tenancy Ordinance 1948. It seems to me that a tenant can only be called a thika tenant under any particular system. It may be the system which has the well-known names mentioned in the statute, namely, "thika", "thika masik utbandi", "thika masik" or "thika bastu." It may also be a similar system. But the fact of having a system under which a tenant holds a to be established. Mr. Mitter has frankly conceded that he has no evidence on the point. In the absence of evidence, I am not prepared to hold that as a matter of fact the defendant is a tenant under any system which can be called the syst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document