Lands within Tea Estate not governed by the Act. Clauses (V) of section 1 of this Act extend the Act to the district of Sythet except “Lands used for special cultivation or for purposes ancillary thereto so long as such use continues”. The provisions in Explanation to clause CV) provide that the words “purposes ancillary thereto shall include the letting out of portion of such land for the maintenance of the coolies working on such cultivation”. New Dhamat Tea Estate Limited Vs. Arjun Kurmi (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 155 (157).

Holding at fixed rate—application for pre-emption.
The annual rent of a holding having been held under a uniform rate for long over twenty years and having regard to the provisions in section 23(2) of the Act it cannot be legitimately presumed that the holding has been held at the same rate from the time of the “Permanent Settlement”. The holding thus being one at fixed rate of rent, the landlord in view of section 22 had no locus standi to file an application for pre-emption under section 33 of the Act. Chandra K Bhattacharya Vs. Suraj Mia (1951) 3 DLR 358.

Right of pre-emption to the landlord.
The right of pre-emption to the landlord in a case of transfer of an ordinary occupancy holding accrued to the landlord as soon as the transfer is effected by a registered instrument and the right vests as soon as the instrument is registered. The statute nowhere provides that the right of the landlord vests only on the service of the notice either under section 30 or section 33 of the Syihet Tenancy Act. Chandra K Bhattacharya Vs. Suraj Mia. (1951) 3 DLR 358

Benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act.
Where no notice of transfer under section 33 of the Act has been served on the landlord, the latter will have 3 years under Art. 81 of the Limitation Act to make an application from the date of registration of the instrument of transfer and in a proper case the applicant will be entitled to the benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act also if a case of fraud is established. Chandra K Bhattacharya Vs. Suraj Mia. (1951) 3 DLR 358

Application for pre-emption not a proceeding under section 147(1)(c).
An application for pre-emption under section 33 of the Act cannot be treated as a proceeding under section 147(I)(c) of the Act simply because in deciding the matter the nature of the tenancy has been forgone into incidentally. Chandra K Bhattacharya Vs. Suraj Mia. (1951) 3 DLR 358

Order under the section not appeal-able
The decree contemplated by section 96 of the C.P. Code is a decree made in a suit. A proceeding under section 34(b) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act is started by an application and not by a plaint, and consequently the order under section 34(b) of the Act is not an order in a suit. The order complained against therefrom is not appealable before the District Judge. Harmuz Ali & ors Vs. Mafiz Ali & ors. (1956)8 DLR 80.

Complete usufructuary mortgage (kot-mortgagc) does not require to be attested by two witnesses and is a valid document if it is registered in accordance with the Registration Act. Karamath Ali Talukdar Vs. Md. Noaz Ali Talukdar (2967) 19 DLR 786.

Under-raiyat—holding over—Effect of.
The defendants were holding over as under raiyats after the expiry of the written lease.
Held: That being so, the case is covered by clause (d) of section 65, Sylhet Tenancy Act. Mafizallah Vs. Manai Ullah (1962) 14 DLR 141.

A suit under section 162 of the Sylhet Tenancy Act is, notionally at least, a Suit for the entire rent and the intention of the Legislature is that the suit is to deal with the whole of the rent for the period so that the tenant is not subject to a multiplicity of suits in respect of the same period. Maharaj Kumar Susansu Kanca Acharja Vs. Moyna Sundari (1954)6 DLR 66.

The word “dispossession” in Art. 3 of Schedule (I) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act implies the coming in of a person and driving out of another from possession. Suna Chand Sukia Boibaidhya Vs. Md. Eklash (1952) 4 DLR 392.

In order that a case may come within the mischief of the said Article, there must be actual dispossession of a raiyat or under-raiyat by the landlord or somebody on his behalf.
Where, therefore, the plaintiffs sued for possession after two years but before 12 years from the date of obtaining symbolical possesion through court pursuant to the sale of suit land in money execution:
Held: The case did not come within the meaning of Art 3 of Sch. (vi) of the Syihet Tenancy Act as there was no dispossession within the meaning of the said Article. Suna Chand Sukia Baibaidhya Vs. Md. Eklash (7952)4 DLR 392.