FAROOQ AHMAD Vs. MUNESHWAR BUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the appellant Farooq Ahmad from a shop. The suit of the respondent Muneshwar Bux Singh was decreed by the trial court and the judgment and decree of the trial court were main tained in the first appeal filed by Fa rooq Ahmad and decided by Sri R. S. Bhargava, District Judge, Barabanki. Farooq Ahmad then filed this second appeal in this Court.

(2.) THE shop was admittedly taken on rent by Farooq Ahmad from Muneshwar Bux Singh. The latter claimed that a lease had been executed under which the tenancy was to termi nate on 30-6-1965 unless the landlord agreed to continue the defendant as a tenant. A dispute was raised about the lease but it was held proved and no controversy has been raised in this court about this lease, Exhibit 4, hav ing been executed by the appellant Farooq Ahmad. It is not in controversy that the appellant was retained as a tenant beyond 30-6-1965 and it was only on 13-2-1968 that a notice was sent to him for vacating the Shop. The suit was thereafter instituted on 23-4-1968 when Farooq Ahmad did not va cate the shop.

(3.) ON the first point the case of the plaintiff was that the shop had been constructed after 1951 and there fore was exempt from the application of the aforesaid Act by reason of Sec tion 1-A thereof. Both the courts be low have found that the shop was con structed after 1951. On this point learned counsel for the appellant has argued that though the finding of the courts below is on a point of fact but as a jurisdictional fact even that finding can be questioned in the second appeal. However he has actually not raised any controversy about that finding and has argued on the findings of the lower courts relating to the notice.