PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) IT is not necessary to reserve judgment and keep back my decision from the parties in this case. The facts giving rise to the appeal are simple but; the law argued at the Bar is not as simple.

( 2 ) THE pltf resp. filed a suit in ejectment out of which this appeal arises-in respect of an extent of 136 of. an acre in C. S. Plot no. 2007 in Cuttack Town, against the defts. alleging that they were darpattadars under him in respect of this property. The pltf. served a notice to quit on 19-4-46 and filed the suit a month later. His case was that the deft, is a tanant-at-will and is liable to be evicted at any time. The deft, pleaded that he had a house on the suit holding for at least 70 years and had acquired permanent occupancy right in the land, that the notice to quit was neither proper nor duly served upon him, and that he is protected from eviction by virtue of the recent amendment to Schedule 36, orissa Tenancy Act, by AOL X [10) of 1946. Exhibit a, the Current Settlement khatian shows that the status of the deft, in respect of the suit land is that of a dar-pattadar and that of the pltf. Madhyasatvadhikar.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif found that the origin of