RAM GOPAL Vs. ALLADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for the possession of the suit properties after issuing a notice purporting to terminate the tenancy of the defendants (respondents in this appeal). The case of the plaintiff is that t he defendants are monthly tenants. The trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court upheld the contention of the appellant and decreed the suit for possession. In Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the decree and Judgment of the Courts below and dismissed the suit on two grounds. It firstly held that as the defendants have become Bhumidars under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act 9 of 1957), they cannot be evicted. Secondly it came to the conclusion that the defendants are licensees, and not lessees and as such they could not be evicted.

(2.) One Mst. Isa Bela and her children were the owners of the suit properties. They entered into a registered agreement with Masita, the father of the defendants under which they permitted Masita to construct a house on the suit properties. The agreement in question was entered into in the year 1911. It is marked as Exh. Ka-6 in the case. That document was signed only by Masita. Admittedly Isa Bela and her children agreed to the terms embodied in the document. Under the document Masita was to pay rent to Isa Bela and her children at the rate of Rs. 4/- per annum. The document further says:

(3.) In pursuance of the afore-mentioned agreement the suit property was put in the possession of Masita. The house put up by Masita was reconstructed by the defendants. The defendants have been regularly paying Rs. 4/- per annum to the owners of the suit property. It is not said that they had contravened and of the terms in the agreement. The original owner sold the suit property to one Babu Ram who in turn sold the same to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have brought this suit on the basis of the agreement entered into in 1911.