RAMJI LAL Vs. VED PRAKASH DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ved Prakash Dubey filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of the disputed premises on the assertion that the disputed land was an open piece of land which was let out to the defendant as a tenant for three years by a registered lease deed dated 5.9.69 wherein the purpose of the leasing and the condition of the lease were duly incorporated. That lease deed was made as required under Sec. 107 of Transfer of Property Act. It has been contended that in the lease deed it was mentioned that the defendant wanted to raise some temporary construction for keeping cows and buffaloes for his milk business rather for starting a mini -dairy -farm. Since the defendant did not vacate the premises after the expiry of the term, which was extended from time to time, the present suit was filed for khas possession of the same and for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages and also for a decree in the nature of mandatory injunction for removing the structure thereon.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit and raised certain objections and it was contended that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court and it comes within the purview of Small Causes Court; that suit was barred under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and it was not cognizable by the Civil Court and since there was a Special Act that was to apply and the suit ought to have been filed in the Small Causes Court.

(3.) BOTH the parties have led their evidences both oral as well as documentary and the learned trial Court after considering the materials on record, decreed the suit after holding that permission was granted for temporary construction and as such the provision of Sec. 29A of Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable and the defendant was not entitled to protection. Aggrieved with the same the defendant -appellant preferred the appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, with the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court. Be it noted that original Suit No. 412 of 1974 was decreed on 27.1.86. Against the same, the appeal was preferred which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1986 which was decided on 27.2.1987. This second appeal was admitted and came up for final hearing.