Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Both the courts dismissed the suit on the finding that as the tenancy of the defendant still subsisted although the term of the lease had expired the plaintiff was not entitled to the compensation already awarded.

5. On behalf of the appellant only two points have been raised before me. The first is that although a non-occupancy raiyat, such as the defendant undoubtedly was, was under a mere liability to ejectment on the ground that the term of his registered lease had expired and although section 89 of the Bengal Tenancy Act lays down that no tenant shall be ejected from his tenure or holding except in execution of a decree it was not possible in this case to institute a suit for ejectment against the defendant for the simple reason that he was not in possession, so that it must be held that when the defendant became liable to ejectment and when he was, in fact, out of possession his tenancy had terminated.