Judgement Appeal by special leave from a decree of the High Court (May 20, 1904), affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court of Zillah, Twenty-four Pergunnahs (March 26, 1902). The suit was brought in 1900 for the ejectment of the appellant from her holding of the property in suit on the ground that she was a mere tenant at will. The defence was (inter alia) that the tenure was a permanent tenure, and that the appellant was not liable to ejectment. The Subordinate Judge held that the tenure was not a permanent, but a precarious, tenure, principally basing his opinion on the grants of new pottahs by the landlord, which the evidence shewed had followed upon various transfers of the property in former years. He was of opinion that the facts disclosed were not sufficient to warrant the inference that the tenancy was, when first created, intended to be permanent, or was subsequently, by implied agreement, converted into a permanent one, and this opinion he formed " granting that the holding is sold and transferable, and its rent fixed." The High Court, moreover, referring to two of these transfers in 1822 and 1859, and to the two sale deeds then executed by the holders of the land in favour of the purchasers, says 2 Law. Rep. 34 Ind. App. 160 ( 1906- 1907) Nabakumari Debi V. Behari Lal Sen 63 that each of them " expressly recites that transferee, on paying the expenses, &c, of the maharajah and on causing the expunction of the transferers name, shall take a pottah in his own name. If the tenancy was of a permanent nature, there would be no necessity for such a clause in either of the deeds, and the insertion of this clause is against the presumption that the land in dispute is the subject of a permanent grant." It further says " There is no settled rule laid down in any case shewn to us which is to the effect that long possession of holding upwards of eighty years necessarily implies the permanency of the tenancy." Leave to appeal was refused by the High Court, on the ground that the property was of less value than Rs. 10,000 ; the Chief Justice adding that the judgment appeared to clash with certain decisions of the High Court, and more especially with two recent decisions of the Judicial Committee, where the same sort of question was involved. Special leave to appeal was granted, the said two decisions, reported in L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. pp. 144 and 149, being referred to, and it being submitted that there had been a miscarriage of justice caused by the Courts in India misunderstand ing the legal effect of a mutation pottah and the legal inferences from the ascertained facts. C. W. Arathoon and De Gruyther, for the appellant, contended that the evidence proved a permanent tenure, otherwise that the presumption to that effect was not displaced by the grant of pottahs as held by the Courts below. Reference was made to Upendra Krishna Mandal v. Ismail Khan Mahomed (( 1904) L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. 144.); Nilratan Mandal v. Ismail Khan Mahomed (( 1904) L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. 149.); Lala Beni Ram v. Kundal Lal (( 1899) 3 Calc. W. N. 502.) ; Ismail Khan Mahomed v. Joygoon Bibi (( 1900) 4 Calc. W. N. 210.) ; Casperz v. Kedarnath Sarbodikari (( 1901) 5 Calc. W. N. 859.) ; Ramchunder Dutt v. Jugheschunder Dutt. (( 1873) 12 Beng. L. R. 229.) The respondents did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ARTHUR WILSON. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by a landlord against his tenant to eject the tenant, on the ground that the latter was a mere tenant at will. The defence was that the tenant held a tenure of a permanent character and was not liable to be evicted at will. The sole question on this appeal is which of these views is correct. The Subordinate Judge, Second Court, of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs, who tried the case, gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff, who is now represented by the respondents; and the High Court supported that decision. Hence the present appeal. There is no question that the tenure or holding, whatever may be its nature, had been in existence for about eighty years, and probably much more, when the suit was instituted. The rent was an almost nominal one, and had never been enhanced, though the value of the holding, as measured by its sale price, had greatly increased. There is no question that the tenure or holding, whatever may be its nature, had been in existence for about eighty years, and probably much more, when the suit was instituted. The rent was an almost nominal one, and had never been enhanced, though the value of the holding, as measured by its sale price, had greatly increased. It had been sold again and again by kobalas purporting to convey an absolute interest; it had passed by will. And the rent had been accepted from the new tenants after such devolutions. From these facts only one inference seems possible, namely, that the tenant held a permanent tenure. But the Courts in India held chat that inference was excluded, on two grounds. The first may be 2 Law. Rep. 34 Ind. App. 160 ( 1906- 1907) Nabakumari Debi V. Behari Lal Sen 64 conveniently stated in the words of the learned judges of the High Court " It appears to us that there are documents which are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the tenancy of the defendant is of a permanent nature. These documents are the two kobalas filed in this case, executed by tenants in possession of the land in favour of their successors. Now, in both these kobalas the transferer conveys the land to the transferee, but expressly recites that the transferee, on paying the expenses, &c, of the Maharajah Bahadur and on causing the expunction of the transferees name, shall take a pottah in his own name. If the tenancy was of a permanent nature there would be no necessity for such a clause in either of the deeds, and the insertion of this clause in both deeds is against the presumption that the land in dispute is the subject of a permanent grant." The view there expressed as to the effect of taking a new pottah is inconsistent with the decisions of this Board in Upendra Krishna Mandal v. Ismail Khan Mahomed (L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. 144.) and Nilratan Mandal v. Ismail Khan Mahomed (L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. 149.), which decisions again were in accordance with the law laid down in the earlier case of Ramchunder Dutt v. Jugheschunder Dutt. (12 Beng. Ap. 144.) and Nilratan Mandal v. Ismail Khan Mahomed (L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. 149.), which decisions again were in accordance with the law laid down in the earlier case of Ramchunder Dutt v. Jugheschunder Dutt. (12 Beng. L. R. 229, at p. 235.) The second ground upon which it was said that the tenure was not a permanent one was that the landlord had not been proved to have assented to the several transfers of the holding. The assent relied upon was the receipt of the rent of the holding from the transferees in their own names. The reason given by the High Court for holding this to be insufficient is that they think the dakhilas acknowledging such receipts, when critically examined, do not expressly describe the transferee as tenant of the holding. That observation may be assumed to be correct. But the dakhilas do describe the rent paid as the rent of the holding, and the person paying as occupier of the holding, and as paying on her own account. Their Lordships think that is quite a sufficient recognition of the transferee as tenant. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed, the decrees of both Courts in India discharged, and the suit dismissed with costs in all Courts. The respondents will pay the costs of this appeal.