SUBEDEEN Vs. SATYAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. P. Singh, J. Both these second appeals have been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure for questioning legality of the concurrent decree passed by IV Addl. Civil Judge, Lucknow dated 21-2-1990 in Suit No. 206 of 1982 and Suit No. 280 of 1983 which was confirmed by XV Addl. District Judge, Lucknow in Appeal Nos. 88 of 1991 and 95 of 1991 by judgment and decree dated 7-12-1991 decreeing the suits against appellants for eviction and payment of rent and for restraining the appellants from raising any structure over Plot No. 159, Mohalla Khas Bazar No. 3, Qaiserbagh, Lucknow.

(2.) SUIT No. 206 of 1982 was filed by Satyawati Devi and Dharm Raj Singh against the appellants Sube Din, Bhikhan and Anwar whereas SUIT No. 280 of 1983 was filed by Dharma Raj Singh against the three appellants. SUIT No. 280 of 1983 was filed for claiming the relief of possession from the defendants over the land in suit and recovery of rent and damages. SUIT No. 206 of 1982 was filed for injunction so as to prevent the appellants from raising any structure thereon. Since both the suits were between common parties and in respect of same land the trial Court heard and decided both the suits together. Parties led only one set of evidence in both the suits.

(3.) BOTH the suits, as observed above, were decreed by the trial court and on appeal the lower appellate court upheld the decree of the trial court. It was inter alia held by the Courts below that what was let out by respondents to the appellants was 'adda Land' for allowing them to carry on the business of sale and purchase of milk animals only on a monthly rent of Rs. 800 and not building. Therefore, protection of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not available to the tenancy of the appellants. It was also held that the 'adda Land' was let out for carrying out the business of sale and purchase of milk animals whereas the respondents violated the condition of lease by converting the said land for the purpose of running the business of dairy (selling milk) and for their residence by constructing residential houses thereon. It was also held that appellants stopped payment of rent settled and therefore they were liable to pay the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 10,586 and damages after termination of tenancy to the extent of Rs. 2640. 00. Respondent Satyawati Devi was held to be owner of the land of which appellants were tenant. The trial Court further held that apart from tin shed for tethering animals and Kothari for keeping Bhoosa (cow fodder) no other construction was present at the time of the inception of the tenancy but the appellants illegally made construction of four rooms thereon unauthorisedly without obtaining permission from the owner of the 'adda Land'. On these findings the suit was decreed for eviction of appellants, recovery of rent and damages, demoli tion of unauthorisedly constructed structures from the land with the direction against appellants against raising any structure on the 'adda Land'.