The courts ruled that failure to prove timely constructions nullified tenancy protections under the Tenancy Act, reaffirming the need for proper determination of tenancy rights within civil ejectment proceedings.

1. This appeal is by the defendants arising out of a suit for the delivery of possession over the land set out in the schedule attached to the plaint by evicting the defendants therefrom and removing the houses and other constructions made by the defendants thereon. The trial court decreed the suit for possession on deposit of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 for those constructions and directed the defendants to remove the houses from the land. Three months, time was granted to the defendants to vacate the land, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs of the suit. On appeal by the defendants the Additional Subordinate Judge affirmed the decree of the court below. It is against this decree that the present appeal has been filed.

2. Plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the land measuring 9 K. 2 Ch. within the Silchar Municipality. One Sarada Charan Acharyya was the owner of the disputed lands along with some other land. By a registered Kabala the land in dispute was purchased by one Rahman Mia from Sarada Charan Acharyya. Later Mahibur Rahman Barlaskar purchased the land by a registered sale deed from Rahman Mia. Mahibur Rahman Barlaskar sold the disputed property along with some other land on 10-3-1952 to the plaintiff Dhananjoy Paul and thus the plaintiff became the owner of the land. Bhula Nath Sukul and Surendra Narayan Sukul took periodic settlement of the land for a period of ten years from 1st January 1935 to December 1944 from Sarada Charan Acharyya on condition of payment of Rs. 30/-per year as the rent and continued in possession of the land under the said settlement.
On the 14th February 1935 a registered lease was executed between the aforesaid lessor and the lessees. On the expiry of the said lease the lessees without increasing the rent remained in possession of the land of the schedule without any right. The revenue of the land at the rate of Rs. 30/- per year is alleged to have been paid by Rahman Mia and Mahibur Rahman Bar Laskar after their purchase. As the lessees remained in possession after the expiry of the term of the lease, they continued as tenants - at - will and the plaintiff has got a right to evict them. Bhulanath Sukul, one of the lessees, died and defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are his heirs and successors. Defendant No. 7 is Surendra Narayan Sukul one of the original lessees. The plaintiff needed the land for his own use and for occupation of his family. Plaintiff alleged that he sent a notice under registered post to the defendants asking them to give up possession of the land by the end of March 1955. Defendant No. 7 accepted the notice addressed to him but the other defendants returned the notice without accepting it. On these facts the present suit has been brought.

3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 filed one written statement by which they raised several pleas. The defendants however admitted that when Sarada Charan Acharyya was the owner of the land, a registered lease was executed on the 14th February 1935 under which the land was let out to the predecessor - in - interest of the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 for ten years expiring by the end of December 1944. After the sale by Sarada Charan Acharyya of the land to Abdur Rahman, Abdur Rahman accepted rent from the ancestor of the answering defendants up to 1947 A. D. by admitting them as the only tenants. Thereafter the said Abdur Rahman sold out the said land to Mahibur Rahman as mentioned in the plaint and Mahibur Rahman filed an ejectment suit of 1950 in the Munsiff's court at Silchar by admitting Bholanath Sukul as the only tenant of the suit land. The suit was however dismissed. Afterwards Mohibur Rahman accep