JUDGMENT Mitra, J. - This is an appeal in a suit for ejectment under sec. 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Plaintiff is a raiyat with a right of occupancy, the Defendant is an under-raiyat. On the 14th Agrahyan 1300 B.S. = 29th November 1893 the Defendant executed a duly registered kabuliyat (Ex. I) in favour of the Plaintiff and it would appear therefrom that he undertook to pay to the Plaintiff twenty-four rupees annually as rent. There was no period fixed. It was an ordinary settlement without any fixed terra as is common in this country. The Munsif held that the tenancy created by it was one for the life of the grantee. The Subordinate Judge held that "it was neither a written lease for the Defendant's life nor was it a lease from year to year terminable at the expiry of each year, but it was a lease for an indefinite period." It is not easy to understand what he meant by the expression "indefinite period." If it is a lease for an indefinite period, it most ordinarily and apart from sec. 49 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, be determinable by a proper notice to quit. As I have said it must be an ordinary lease from year to year. The learned vakil for the Respondent is not prepared to support the Subordinate Judge in his construction of the lease and has fallen back on the construction put upon the document by the Munsif, but his argument is obviously untenable. The main question argued before me refers to the true construction of secs. 49 and 85 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, As containing the terms of a lease by a raiyat to an under-raiyat, the document executed long after the passing of the Bengal Tenancy Act, could not under sec. 85, sub-sec. (2) be admitted to registration, if there was any indication in it that it was for a term exceeding nine years. If the document was registered in contravention of the express provision in sec. 85, sub-sec. (2), it is void and it must be dealt with as non-existing [Srikant Mondul v. Saroda Kant Mondul ILR 26 Cal. 46 (1898) and Fazil Shaikh v. Karamuddi Sheikh 6 C.W.N. 916 (1902)]. If the document was registered in contravention of the express provision in sec. 85, sub-sec. (2), it is void and it must be dealt with as non-existing [Srikant Mondul v. Saroda Kant Mondul ILR 26 Cal. 46 (1898) and Fazil Shaikh v. Karamuddi Sheikh 6 C.W.N. 916 (1902)]. The object, it seems to me, that the legislature had in view was not only to protect landlords but to protect the raiyats themselves against the effect of their own unprovident acts. Madan Chandra Kapali v. Jaki Karikar 6 C.W.N. 377 (1902) and Gopal Mandal v. Eshan Chunder Banerjee ILR 29 Cal. 148 (1901) dealt with cases of leases executed before the Bengal Tenancy Act came into force. In the latter case the distinction between the effects of registration of a lease executed before and another executed after the commencement of the Act is clearly pointed out and it is not necessary for me to repeat what has been said by the learned Judges. It is contended, however, on the authority of Madan Chandra Kapali v. Jaki Karikar 6 C.W.N. 377 (1902) that the lease not being expressly for a period exceeding nine years the registration is good. The contention may I think be accepted, if the indefinite period in the lease had the effect of creating a lease from year to year only. It cannot be accepted if the interest attempted to be created entitled the Defendant to remain on the land as long as he wished, without any power in the landlord to determine it. 2. Assuming that the document was duly registered but that the tenancy created by it was determinable by a proper notice to quit if it were an ordinary lease to a tenant, the question arises whether sec. 49 of the Act bars an ejectment as the lease is to an under-raiyat. That section bars an ejectment except (a) on the expiration of term of a written lease and (b) when holding otherwise than under written lease at the end of the agricultural year next following the year in which a notice to quit is served upon the tenant by his landlord. The Plaintiff says that his case comes under cl. (b) and he accordingly caused the service of the required notice as found by the lower Courts. 3. It seems to me that sec. The Plaintiff says that his case comes under cl. (b) and he accordingly caused the service of the required notice as found by the lower Courts. 3. It seems to me that sec. 49 contemplates two classes of cases (a) written leases for terms and (b) unwritten leases. It does not contemplate the case of a written lease without any term. Under sec. 85 the term of a lease to an under-raiyat cannot exceed nine years and if we read sec. 49 with it the conclusion is inevitable that an under-raiyat cannot insist on remaining on the land of his landlord under a lease, unless it is one for a period not exceeding nine years. We must read cl. (b) of sec, 49 as also covering the case of a written lease without a term of years. Otherwise the classification is against the rule of division by dichotomy. The legislature evidently contemplated in sec. 49, either the case of a written lease with a term or a written lease without term which amounted to an unwritten lease. The interposition of a third case not coming within the other two frustrates the obvious intention of the law. There is no reason to suppose that the intention in framing sec. 49 was to give a privilege to under-raiyats holding under a lease for an indefinite term which cannot he enjoyed by his brethren holding either under a lease for a term of under an agreement to hold for a period exceeding nine years. In the later case sec. 85 makes the lease void. 4. I am, therefore, of opinion that the Defendant in the present case is liable to ejectment, notwithstanding that the lease under which he held was registered. His holding under the lease is a misnomer as, but for the vague words of sec. 49 he could not put it forward as a shield against ejectment on proper notice to quit. The view I take is in accordance with that taken in appeal from Appellate Decree No. 2115 of 1900, decided on the 17th April 1903. The learned vakil for the Respondent has relied on a sentence in the judgment in Madan Chandra Kapali v. Jaki Karikar 6 C.W.N. 377 (1902) which seems to import that "if a tenant holds under a written lease for an indefinite time, his raiyat lesser cannot eject him arbitrarily. The learned vakil for the Respondent has relied on a sentence in the judgment in Madan Chandra Kapali v. Jaki Karikar 6 C.W.N. 377 (1902) which seems to import that "if a tenant holds under a written lease for an indefinite time, his raiyat lesser cannot eject him arbitrarily. He can only do to for non-payment of rent." As I bare already pointed out the lease in that case could not be considered to be void having been executed before the commencement of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and I do not know what the exact terms of the lease were. In the present case I have no doubt that the lease is one from year or year. I therefore think that the appeal should be decreed and the Plaintiff's suit decreed with costs in all the costs.