DEVI PRASAD Vs. GHANSHIAM DASS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises the question whether the word "buildings" in Sec. 9 of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1951 cannot under any circumstances cover a structure known as a bhatta or a brick -kiln which has no roof over it. The Appellants Devi Prasad and others were the owners of a brick -kiln situated or two plots of land which were admittedly outside the Municipal limits. They leased out the Bhatta to the Defendant Respondent Ghanshiam Dass under a registered lease deed dated 29 -12 -1950. The lease was to take effect from the 1st of January, 1951 and terminate on 30 -9 -1953. The rent was fixed at Rs. 41 per mensem payable annually in the month of October. It is common ground that the rent for the first two years was paid by the lessee but for the third year was not Devi Prasad filed a suit for the recovery of last year's arrears of rent -that is from 1 -10 -1952 to 30 -9 -1953. He also claimed a trifling sum as interest.

(2.) The suit was contested by the lessee Ghanshiam Dass. The foundation of his defence was that, after the passing of the ZA and LR Act, the two plots of land had vested in the State with effect from 1 -7 -1952, and the Plaintiff was no longer entitled to claim any rent from the Defendant in respect of this land. Alternatively, the Defendant pleaded that he had raised constructions on the land which now belong to him under S. 9 of the aforesaid Act and the rent was, therefore, liable to be proportionately reduced.

(3.) The trial court held that the Bhatta or brick -kiln did not vest in the State. As it occupied l/3rd of the total area of the land it passed a decree for l/3rd of the rent claimed. Both the parties appealed against this decision -the Plaintiff on the ground that he had been wrongly deprived of the amount of rent claimed under the lease and the Defendant on the ground that he was not liable to pay rent even for the bhatta, which according to him, had also vested in the State.