SYED AHMED ALI Vs. SHAFIQ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of IX Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 16.8.1987. By the impugned judgment the first appellate Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif dated 23.3.1984 dismissed the plaintiff's suit against the defendant for ejectment.

(2.) THE following are substantial questions of law on which this appeal is to be decided :

(3.) THE defendant seems to have contested the suit. He seems to have contended that the property in dispute originally belong to Sri Wajid Ali, grand father of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who had raised construction on plot No. 72/82, which was given a separate municipal number 132 and splitted into two numbers 204 and 205. According to the defendant he was a tenant of the entire premises covered by plot No. 204 but a portion of it was allowed to be occupied by the plaintiffs and the defendant retained a northern part of plot No. 104 and an agreement dated 31.10.1978 between the parties was also executed. The said Wajid Ali is said to have created a Waqf Alal Aulad of the property. Plaintiff 1 is said to be Mutwalli and Landlord of the defendant. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 not the landlords. However, plaintiff No. 2 joined the agreement dated 31.10.1978. It is stated that the building with land was let out. Therefore, the suit was covered by the Rent Control Act of 1972. The agreement dated 31.10.1978 was relied upon. In the said agreement the intention of the parties, it is stated was that the defendant would not be ejected from the tenement unless he rendered himself liable to ejectment on any of the grounds specified in Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Whether or not the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply to the suit but the defendant could be ejected only on the grounds similar or analogous to the grounds contained to Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The landlord mentioned in the agreement was treated as attached to the building for the beneficial enjoyment of the building, which was let out to the defendant. It was further contended that the property being waqf property the plaintiffs had no right to sue and maintain the suit. Arrears of rent had accumulated because of wrong refusal of the money order by the plaintiff No. 1. The trial Court framed certain issues in the suit. Issue No. 1 related to the plaintiffs' title as landlord over the suit, property. Issue No. 2 related to the application of the W.P. Act No. 13 of the 1972 to the suit. Issue No. 3 was about the plaintiff having no right to sue. Issue No. 4 related to the validity of the notice.