DEEP CHANDRA Vs. LALA RAGHURAJ SWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dated 5th Aug., 1965. It came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, but as a question of law of general importance was involved in this case, the learned Single Judge referred it to a larger Bench. This is how the present appeal has come before us.

(2.) THE material facts to bring out the point involved in the case are as follows:- THE dispute between the parties centres round ten plots, situate in village Yusufpur Mahal Rustam Ali Khan, pargana tahsil and district Muzaffarnagar. Admittedly, Rai Mal and Bhartu were the tenants-in- chief of the said plots, owned by the present appellant. THEy executed a sub-lease on 10th March. 1950, in favour of Raghuraj Swarup, the respondent, for a period of five years, commencing from 1st January, 1950, to 31st December, 1954. THE tenants-in-chief, however, surrendered the disputed land in favour of the appellant on 14th September, 1954. THE appellant gave a notice to the respondent on 2nd Nov. 1954, asking him not to cultivate the disputed land after the expiry of the sub-lease in his favour. He, however, did not give possession and the appellant was, therefore, obliged to file a suit for his ejectment under S. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. He also claimed Rs. 212/- by way of damages from the defendant.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector Ist Class, Muzaffarnagar, dated 24th April, 1964, the plaintiff went up in appeal and the 2nd Additional Civil Judge confirmed the finding of the trial court, that the status of the defendant was that of a non-occupancy tenancy and he should not be treated as a trespasser and, therefore, the suit under S. 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act was not maintainable. The plaintiff has now come up in second appeal to this court and the only contention raised in this appeal is that the suit under S. 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was maintainable and the courts below have committed an error of law in holding to the contrary.