RAM SWARUP Vs. HARI SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal his been instituted by the defendant/appellant.

(2.) THE facts necessary for decision of the appeal are as under. Harishanker Lal plaintiff filed Suit No. 131/80 in the Court of Munsif, Mathura against Ram Sarup etc. defendants. In short the plaintiff alleged in the plaint, the disputed land described at the foot of the plaint had been taken on rent by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 35 per month. The aforesaid land had been given on rent for the purpose of parking vehicles etc. In these times, the aforesaid land was neither within the purview of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1947 nor the said land was embraced by the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972. It was also alleged in the plaint that the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff raised permanent construction over the vacant land. On the above basis the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the land in suit by serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The aforesaid suit was filed for dispossessing the defendant from the disputed property. The other prayer was for a decree at the rate of Rs. 110 per month for use and occupation of the said land by the defendant.

(3.) THE trial Court framed issues on the pleadings of the parties. Out of the said issues, the following issues are relevant or adjudication in the context of the decision of the present appeal :-