SABITA Vs. NIJJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by Defendants arises out of a suit for injunction and damages. Nija Plaintiff brought the suit against Smt. Sabita and ten others with these allegations. The Plaintiff obtained a number of agricultural plots from Defendant No. 1 under a registered lease dated 1-10-1941. The Plaintiff was in possession of these plots under the lease. The Plaintiff cultivated sugarcane crop in these plots in the year 1947. On 11-7-1947 Defendant No. 1 with the assistance of other Defendants wrongfully cut away the sugarcane crop cultivated by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff therefore, prayed for a decree for Rs. 400 as damages for the loss of the crop, and for injunction restraining Defendant from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over the plots. Defendant No. 1 contented the suit. She pleaded that the term of the lease in Plaintiff's favour expired long ago. After the expiry of the lease Defendant No. 1 took possession over the plots. She maintained that it was she, who cultivated the sugarcane crop in question. The learned Munsif held that the crop in dispute was cultivated by the Plaintiff, and Defendants were wrong in cutting the crop. The amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. 250. The learned Munsif therefore passed in Plaintiff's favour a decree for Rs. 250 as damages, and also passed a decree for injunction as prayed. An appeal filed by Defendants was dismissed by the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad. Hence this second appeal by the Defendants.

(2.) The crop in dispute was cut on 11-7-1947. The first question for consideration is whether the Plaintiff was entitled to retain possession over the land in July 1947 as a sub-tenant. The lease was executed on 1-10-1941. It was stipulated that the lessee would remain in possession for five years from Kharif 1349 F. The period of five years stipulated in the lease expired in October 1946. So the lease did not entitle the Plaintiff to retain possession over the land in July 1947.

(3.) The learned District Judge observed in his judgment that, the Plaintiff was entitled to retain in possession for a further period of five years according to the recent amendment in the Tenancy Act. The learned District Judge did not give details of that amendment. Perhaps the learned Judge had Section 295A, U.P. Tenancy Act in his mind. Section 295A of the Act deals with a person, who was a sub-tenant when the amendment came into force. The amendment came into force on 26th May, 1947. We have seen that the lease expired in the present case in October 1946. So the Plaintiff-Respondent could not got benefit from Section 295-A of the Act. Mr. B.R. Avasthi appearing for the Respondent did not rely upon this section. It, therefore, follows that the Plaintiff was not entitled to retain possession over the land after October, 1946, and that the Plaintiff's position in July 1947 was that of a trespasser.