Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The learned Advocate on behalf of the defendants-appellants contends that the holdings being qaimi or occupancy were presumably non-transferable until it was shown by the plaintiffs that they were transferable by custom or consent obtained from the landlords. He says that nontransferability is an ordinary incident of an occupancy holding and it will be presumed under the law to be so until the contrary is shown. The contention seems to be sound and is borne out by an analysis of the status and incidents of occupancy holdings under the Bengal Tenancy Act. Sections 23 to 26 deal with the incidents of occupancy right. Section 23 entitles the holder of such a right to use the land in any manner which does not materially impair the value of the land or render it unfit for the purpose of tenancy. Section 25 protects the holder of an occupancy right from an ejectment by his landlord except in execution of a decree. Section 26 makes such a right descendible to heirs as any other immoveable property. No right of transfer has been expressly conferred upon the holder of an occupancy right as in the case of a permanent tenure-holder and raiyats holding at fixed rates respectively by Sections 11 and 18 of the Act. On the other hand, Section 183 read with illustration 2 of that section makes it clear that such a right can be acquired only by custom or usage being not inconsistent with or expressly or by implication modified or abolished by the provisions of this Act and such a "custom or usage accordingly whenever it exists will not be affected by the Act."