Benamidar's suit for possession upheld; unregistered tenancy document excluded, and mere demand sufficed to terminate occupation.

A tenancy treated as beginning in January 1939 supported the notice to quit, because the parties' rent arrangement and admissions were accepted, while the unregistered kirayanama was held inadmissible. Once excluded, the occupants' status was no better than tenants at will, so a mere demand for possession was sufficient and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required. The suit for ejectment was also maintainable in the plaintiff's name, since a benamidar may sue for possession in his own name and Order I Rule 8 CPC was unnecessary. The decree for possession was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenancy was shown to have commenced from January 1939 so as to support the notice to quit, and whether the defendants could insist on the unregistered kirayanama as governing the relationship; (ii) Whether the suit for ejectment was maintainable in the name of the plaintiff, including the contention based on Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the tenancy was shown to have commenced from January 1939 so as to support the notice to quit, and whether the defendants could insist on the unregistered kirayanama as governing the relationship.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by both Courts below showed that the parties had agreed that rent would be payable from January 1939 and that the defendants had admitted liability on that basis. The unregistered kirayanama was held inadmissible, and once excluded the defendants' possession was no higher than that of tenants at will. In such a situation, a mere demand for possession was sufficient to determine the tenancy and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required.

Conclusion: The tenancy was treated as commencing from January 1939, the notice objection failed, and the defendants were not entitled to resist ejectment on the basis of the unregistered document.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for ejectment was maintainable in the name of the plaintiff, including the contention based on Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The plaintiff's title derived from the sale in his favour, and even if he was treated as a benamidar, the legal position recognised a benamidar's right to sue for possession in his own name. The suit was not one brought on behalf of an unregistered body, and there was no necessity to invoke Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for its institution.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable in the plaintiff's name, and the objection based on Order I Rule 8 failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree for possession was upheld and the defendants' appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A benamidar, as the holder of legal title, may maintain a suit for possession in his own name, and where the occupant is no better than a tenant at will, termination of possession may be effected by a mere demand for possession without notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

---