KUBER NATH KANDU Vs. GORAKH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are defendants' appeals arising out of suits for arrears of rent and for possession of the land by removal of the constructions thereon made by the defendants.

(2.) The land in dispute is situate in Barhaj Bazar of which the Raja of Majhauli was the proprietor. On plot No. 90 the defendants and other persons obtained from the Raja permission to construct stalls for keeping shops by entering into agreements with the Raja. It was stated at the Bar that the agreements were all on similar terms and contained a stipulation that the defendants would construct temporary stalls for the purpose of keeping shops and that they would vacate the land if required to do so by the Raja's agent or officials. It was also stipulated that the defendants could be given one week's notice by the Raja to vacate the land and that so long as the land was used for keeping the stalls, the defendants would pay a certain amount mentioned in the document as 'baithaki' for keeping the stalls. On 27th November 1950, the plaintiff took a permanent lease of the entire plot No. 90 from the Raja together with the transfer of the ownership rights of the trees and permanent structures standing on the plot. In the lease taken by the plaintiff, it was mentioned that the plaintiff would be entitled to eject the defendants. Accordingly the plaintiff served the defendants with one week's notice for vacating the land. On the defendants' failing to do so, the plaintiff instituted these suits for arrears of rent and for possession. The suits were connected and it was urged in defence that land was permanently settled by the Raja with them (defendants) as lessees, and that the contracts under which the defendants took the land from the Raja were not reduced to writing but the defendants made over blank stamped papers after affixing their signatures and it was alleged that the Raja was an influential person and he got scribed on those stamped papers the agreements containing unconscionable terms, that the contract was not valid and that the plaintiff was only one of the two lessees of the land and was not entitled to evict the defendants. It was further urged that the right to sue the defendants for eviction which was purported to be transferred under the document dated 27th November 1950 was not transferable according to law. The defendants also pleaded that the agreement with the Raja was invalid because of undue influence. It was pleaded that permanent structures had been made on the land and the suit was barred by estoppel and by limitation.

(3.) Several issues were framed. The learned Munsif found that one of the main questions arising in each of these cases was as to whether the position of the defendants was that of lessees or of licensees. The learned Munsif held that the defendants were lessees of the plots in suit He further found that the defendants had made constructions which could not be considered to be purely temporary and that all these constructions were made to the knowledge of the Raja and his officials, and that therefore the suits were barred by estoppel. It was further held that the agreements signed by the defendants and delivered to the Raja were perfectly valid and binding on them and they were not vitiated by undue influence. The learned Munsif found that the plaintiff being only one of the two lessees was not entitled to determine the tenancy of the defendants or to sue them for eviction. He held that no valid notice determining the defendants' tenancy was served on them. On these findings the plaintiff's suit for possession was dismissed though it was decreed for the recovery of arrears of rent.