Judgment 1. THIS appeal is by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for eviction. The suit was brought under section 48c, clause (c), of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, held the disputed land as an under-raiyat, under a written lease, the term whereof has expired. The plaintiff further pleaded that he required the suit-land for his own cultivation, that is, for cultivation by himself or by his men. It was also a part of the plaintiff's case that the defendant did not come within the protection of any of the provisos [(i) and (ii)] to clause (c) of section 48c. 2. THE defence, on the other hand, was inter alia to the effect that the defendant had the protection under clause (2) of proviso (i) of the said provisos, and, further, that the plaintiff's case of requirement for cultivation by himself or by his men to attract the other proviso [proviso (ii)] was not true. On the facts, found or admitted, the position of the parties stands as follows : The defendant was originally an under-raiyat in respect of the disputed land under the raiyats, who were his landlords. This under-raiyati interest was, however, sold to the plaintiff by the defendant, who simultaneously took the present or disputed under-raiyati, by executing a kabuliyat in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff acquired the raiyati interest from the holders thereof, and, eventually, on the expiration of the term of the above kabuliyat, brought the present suit. There can be no dispute that the defendant's possession, since the kabuliyat, was that of an under-raiyat under the said kabuliyat, and that such possession was for less than 12 years. There is no dispute also that his previous possession of the suit land under his previous under-raiyati, which was sold to the plaintiffs, as aforesaid, if added to his possession under the above subsequent under-raiyati, would cover a period of more than 12 years. 3. A question then arose whether, under the above circumstances, the defendant would have the protection under proviso (i) (2) of the above section 48c, clause (c. The trial court answered this point in favour of the defendant and allowed him to tack to his present possession his previous possession as an under-raiyat under the raiyats, who were the plaintiff's vendors. A question then arose whether, under the above circumstances, the defendant would have the protection under proviso (i) (2) of the above section 48c, clause (c. The trial court answered this point in favour of the defendant and allowed him to tack to his present possession his previous possession as an under-raiyat under the raiyats, who were the plaintiff's vendors. In this view, it was not necessary for the learned trial Judge to consider the point under proviso (ii) of the above section, as the suit was dismissed by him on his above finding. 4. ON appeal, the learned judge in the court of appeal below has taken a different view on proviso (i) (2) and, in his opinion, the possession, relevant under that proviso is the possession of the defendant as an under-raiyat of the particular under-raiyati, from which his ejectment was claimed on the expiration of the term thereof under the written lease, which created it. The view of the learned trial judge receives support from the decision of Jack, J., in Biswambar Chakravarty and Ors. v. Kalidas Dhupi, (1) reported in 40 C. W. N. 1275. The view of the learned Subordinate Judge, however, in the court of appeal below, is very strongly supported by the decision of Edgley, J. in Ali Ahmmad v. Abdul Gania Mia and anr., (2) reported in 44 C. W. N. 330. I am more inclined to the view of Edgley, J. on this point, and, accordingly, in my opinion, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on this part cf the case, namely, so far as proviso (i) (2) is concerned, must be upheld and affirmed. That, however, would not be enough to entitle the plaintiff to a decree in the present suit, as, upon that finding, the defendant being excluded from the said clause (i) (2), would immediately come under proviso (ii) and the plaintiff will have to satisfy the Court as to his requirement for cultivation, as contemplated in the said proviso. The learned Subordinate Judge has, no doubt, recorded a finding on this point in favour of the plaintiff, but it has been recorded in a summary fashion without considering the implications of the terms of the said proviso, namely, its language, and without also considering the evidence, either in detail or from the proper point of view. The learned Subordinate Judge has, no doubt, recorded a finding on this point in favour of the plaintiff, but it has been recorded in a summary fashion without considering the implications of the terms of the said proviso, namely, its language, and without also considering the evidence, either in detail or from the proper point of view. Indeed, it appears to me that, apart from anything else, the learned Subordinate Judge misdirected himself in his approach to the said evidence on the expressions, used by himself, and, accordingly, I am not inclined to accept the said finding as conclusive between the parties, even in this second appeal. The inevitable result, then, would be that the matter will have to go back for fresh and further consideration, on the question under proviso (ii) to section 48c, clause (c), of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and unless the present respondents who are the successors-in-interest of the original plaintiff can satisfy the Court that they have a case under the said proviso, their present suit would fail. If, however, the said respondents are able to satisfy the Court on that point, they will be entitled to a decree in the present suit. 5. IN the result, subject to the above observations, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge are set aside and the case is remitted to the court of appeal below for fresh and further consideration in accordance with law in the light of the said observations. There will be no order for costs in this appeal. Other costs will be in the discretion of the court of appeal below, when it finally decides the matter.