Dawson Miller, C.J.@mdashIn my opinion this appeal is really governed by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Bijoy Gopal Mukerjee v. Krishna Mahishi Debi 34 C. 329 : 11 C.W.N. 424 : Cri.L.J. 334 : 9 Bom. L.R. 602 : 2 M.L.T. 133 : 17 M.L.J. 154 : 4 A.L.J. 329 : 34 I.A. 87 (P.C.). The suit was instituted by the reversioner of one Manmohan Singh who was a tenant of land in Chota Nagpur. After his death his daughter had been in possession during her life and had granted what is described as a mukarari lease of the raiyati holding to the defendant in the suit. Upon the death of the limited owner, the plaintiff as nearest reversioner sued to recover possession.
2. The Judicial Committee have laid down in the case just referred to that in such a case the reversioner may treat the alienation which purports to extend beyond the life of the limited owner as a nullity and he may sue, for possession at any time within 12 years of the death of the limited owner without first seeking to set aside the transfer in favour of the defendant. In other Words, if he elects to treat the transfer as a nullity after the death of the limited owner he may do so and there is nothing left in such a case to beset aside and he may sue for possession and is entitled to obtain possession. The present case is the case of a holding and in either case it seems to me all that is necessary for the reversioner to do is to exercise his option and that he may do by merely bringing a suit to claim possession. If that is the proper view to take and it appears to me that it is the view taken by their Lord ships of the Judicial Committee it follows that from the moment the reversioner exercises his option there is nothing left in the transferee and the lease has terminated on the death of the limited owner. It was contended in this case that the defendant has acquired the interest at all event of an under raiyat and that, therefore, he was entitled to no ice to quit. Under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act there is no provision requiring notice to quit to be served upon an under raiyat, but even supposing that it is necessary that he should be served with a reasonable notice by his immediate landlord, that is only because the tenancy does not terminate until such notice is given, and one cannot sue in ejectment to recover land in the possession of a tenant until the tenancy has come to an end. If the only means by which such tenancy could come to an end were by notice to quite agree it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the notice had been given, But there are more ways than one by which tenancy may determine. The limited owner had no power to grant a tenancy beyond her own life as against the reversioner and on e the reversioner elects to treat the interest granted to the defendant as an interest extending only for the lifetime of the (sic), then, in such a case it terminates upon the death of the grantor and there is, therefore, nothing more to be done to terminate the tenancy. The defendant becomes a trespasser if he refuses to turn out and the plaintiff is entitled to bring a suit in ejectment without giving any notice whatever. In my opinion these appeals ought to be allowed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge restored. The plaintiff is entitled to his costs in each appeal here and in the Courts below.
Mullick, J.
3. I agree. There are authorities which show that an under-raiyat in Chota Nagpur may in certain circumstances be entitled to notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, but that question does not arise in the present case. Here the defendant is liable to be ejected at the option of the reversion unless he can show that he has acquired any statutory right of occupancy. There is no suggestion of any such right here and the decree of the Subordinate Judge is, therefore, right.
