M/S. KEDAR NATH BAIJNATH AND OTHERS Vs. SRI RAM CHANDRAJI, SRI JANKI, SRI LAKSHMAN JI VIRAJMAN MANDIR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' application in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the Judgment and order dated 27.7.1981 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge (exercising the powers of Small Cause Courts Act), Kanpur, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs -opposite parties for the eviction of the defendants -applicants from the premises in suit as well as for removal of the machinery and other fittings existing over the land forming part of the leased property. A decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,500/ - per month has also been passed by the court below. The dispute is about premises No. 36/51 and 36/51 -A. Premises No. 36/51. Chatai Mohal, Kanpur is an endowed property vesting in the deities Sri Ram Chandraji, Sri Jankiji and Sri Lakshmanji Virajman Mandir. The property is managed by a trust called L. Ram Dasji Trust, the trustees of which have instituted the present suit giving rise to this petition.

(2.) THE plaint allegations may be briefly summed up thus. The plaintiff -deities are the owners of the premises in suit which comprise considerable open land (measuring 900 Sq. yards) with two shops and a gate in a corner thereof. In the year 1950 these premises were leased for a period of 15 years to the defendant -applicants under a registered lease carrying a monthly rental of Rs. 285/ - per mensem. Under the terms of the lease the defendants were left free to raise a building for running factory over the open land. The defendants could also install machinery thereon and even make changes in the constructions raised by them consistently with their requirements. They were, however, not allowed to carry out any alteration in the two shops and the gate without the consent of the plaintiffs in writing. The lease further provided that at the end of the period of the lease the building raised by the defendants shall vest in the plaintiffs and the defendants shall not have the right to remove the same. They were, however, free to take away the machinery and other fittings installed by them in the factory before handing over possession to the plaintiffs at the end of the lease. The defendants were even conferred the right to let out any portion of the building raised by them during the subsistence of the lease but were bound to hand over vacant possession after the expiration of the lease.

(3.) IN paragraph 10 of the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that the premises were in the nature of a plot and the lease was granted mainly to enable the defendants to construct a factory building over the leased land. That being so, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply. On these averments the present suit was filed for the reliefs mentioned above.