Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. It will be observed that in none of the cases cited in argument was there a stipulation in the. kabulyat by the tenant to quit the land. In the present case, the suit is based upon the kabulyat whereby the defendant No. 1 agreed with the plaintiff to go out on the expiry of the term of his lease. It is true Section 178 provides that nothing in any contract between a landlord and a tenant made before or after the passing of the Act shall entitle a landlord to eject a tenant otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act relating to ejectment of under-raiyats are contained in Sections 89 and 49 besides Section 66, which does not apply to the present case. Section 89 provides that no tenant shall be ejected from his tenure or holding except in execution of a decree and Section 49 lays down (so far as it is applicable to the present case) that an under-raiyat shall not be liable to be ejected by his landlord except on the expiration of the term of a written lease. The present suit is based upon a kabulyat which provides for ejectment on the expiry of the lease and the suit is brought after the expiry of the term. The defendant No. 1, therefore, cannot resist this action for ejectment.