AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jenkins, C.J.—It is in the circumstances of this case impossible for us in second appeal to question the propriety of the finding that the Plaintiffs were raiyats and the Defendants under-raiyats. Nor do I think it can be maintained that notice was not properly served. It is true the lower Appellate Court speaks of Defendant No. 1 alone but that was because Defendant No. 1 was the only Defendant who contested the suit. The only rem lining point is whether the notice was bad because it indicated a very brief time within which the land was to be quitted.
Sec. 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act prescribes no form of notice, nor has it given any indication as to the length of notice and this is for a very good reason. It would be deplorable to introduce, into matters of this kind, the intricacies of English law or even the law as prevailing in the Presidency towns. Nothing is said as to the length of notice, because the Act itself protects the under-raiyat for ejectment until the end of the agricultural year next following the year in which a notice to quit is served upon him by his landlord. The provision of the law is that which indicates time at which it becomes obligatory upon an under-raiyat to leave. In my opinion, the lower Appellate Court was right. We must therefore confirm the decree with costs.