Law:

Section:

  Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), S. 3 (17) proviso (as amended by Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act (IV of 1928) Proviso neither retrospective nor debars a bargadar from plea of tenancy-Status to be determined with reference to circumstances of case: [Abu Nasser Sayedullah v. Abdul Malik P L D 1960 Dacca 587 rel.]   Interpretation of Statutes-Retrospectively-Not to be inferred unless clearly arisingfrom the Act-Not to impair existing rights-Vested rights cannot be affected without express provision's to that effect. JUDGMENT   HASSAN, J.-On 18th of February 1929, the plaintiffs purchased the property described in schedule Ka of the plaint by four different kabalas. It was their case that after the purchase they possessed the property either in khas in their own cultivation or through bargadars. In Chaitra, 1959 B. S. the defendants took yearly settlement with a condition to pay half the produce but by amendment dated 30th of June 1959, the word "Sankarari" "Yearly" was deleted and in place of 1361 B. S. was introduced at the time of hearing of the suit. The defendants did not deliver half crops for 1363 and 1364 though delivered for the previous year. Hence they instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,100 as described in the schedule Ka of the plaint.   The suit was contested by the defendants pleading inter alia that the suit was notmaintainable in its present form, that the defendants were not bargadars but they were tenants from their ancestors, that the suit land comprised two korfa jotes of their father Imam Mondal, rent being half the produce which had been recorded as such in the C. S. records, that the rent for 1362 B. S. was paid to the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get rent for the years 1363 and 1364 B. S., as the plaintiffs' rent-receiving interest had been acquired by Govern ment. They also challenged the quantum of the produce and the price thereof.   The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs or their vendors badnever been in khas possession of suit land, that the defendants with their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession since the…