LALA KISHUN CHAND Vs. SHEO DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal by the defendant against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed a second appeal, affirming the decision of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff's, suit for possession over certain land. The land belongs to the Government and is nazul. The management thereof vested in the Notified Area of the Bindki Board. The land was taken by the defendant initially on 17-1-1922, for a period of 1 1/2 years under an ikrarnama executed by the defendant. Certain rent was reserved and the defendant was granted the right to any on shop business over the land and to make a structure of a transitory character which he was to remove at the time of the expiry of the term. On 13-3-1925, a fresh ikrarnama was executed by the defendant for a term of 41/2 years. That term expired sometime in September, 1929. The defendant was, however, permitted by the Board to continue in occupation of the land as a tenant and rent used to be realised from him. On 3-6-1939, the District Magistrate of Fatehpur by a letter Ex. 3 informed the President of the Notified Area that the lease in favour of the defendant might continue for another five years. The holding over therefore continued up to 31-3-1944.

(2.) What transpired then was this. The Board wanted that the defendant should continue over the land as tenant. The plaintiff however, approached the Commissioner for a, lease in his favour. On 9-2-1946, a notice was given by the Administrator of the Notified Area to the defendant asking him to vacate the land within a period of 15 days, and telling him that the lease stood determined on that date. On 29-3-1946, the plaintiff obtained a lease in regard to this land from the Commissioner of Allahabad. The lease was for building purposes and was in Form B of the leas of nazul land. The plaintiff could not get possession over the land. He therefore instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen on 9-7-1946, contending that the defendant had no right to remain in occupation of the land after 31-3-1944, when the lease stood determined and after the expiry of the term given in the notice aforesaid. The defendant denied that the term of his lease had expired and he alleged that no valid notice of ejectment had been given. He contended that the Notified Area still recognised him as the lessee of the land. He further contended that the commissioner had no authority to execute a lease in favour of the plaintiff and that even i his position be treated to be that of a licensee, he has made a work of permanent character on the land and could not therefore be ejected therefrom.

(3.) The trial court found that the lease in favour or the defendant had in fact been determined so far back as 13-9-1929. The trial court further held that even if the possession of the defendant was that of a licensee, the license had been revoked by a notice dated the 9th of February, 1946, given by the then Administrator of the Notified Area of Bindki. The defendant, in the trial court's view, therefore, was not entitled to remain in possession of the land and the plaintiff was entitled to possession on the basis of the lease dated the 29th of March, 1946, executed in his favour by the Commissioner.