The Calcutta Weekly Notes Law Notes and Noted of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and Short Notes of Important Decisions of other High Courts in India Monday August 28 1933

49 (b)—and points out that under the provisions of that section too the underaiyat was liable to ejectment only at the end of the agricultural year next following the year in which a notice to quit is served upon him by the landlord." Our correspodent thinks that this provision and the prvision in the new sec. [...] 49 (b) said nothing as to the length of the notice and any notice intimating the lanlord's desire to terminate the tenancy would terminate it the only protection given to the tenant being that his actual eviction would be postponed till the end of the agricultural year next following that in which the notice was served. [...] The length of the notice itself was no factor in the termination of the teancy. [...] The attention of the Legislature is ftan'n to this inexactitude in the language of the section. [...] The dispute was referred to arbitration without the intervention of the Court and a decree was passed in accordance with the award made which declared that a certain amount was to be paid by A. M. and the property was to remain mortgaged as before and if A. M. failed to pay M would be entitled to realise the amount by attacment and sale of the mortgaged' property.