HIRA LAL Vs. SHIV SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for possession over an open piece of land which was let out to the defendant by a registered lease deed dated 15th Aug., 1928. The defendant had claimed title to this on the basis of certain rights alleged to have been bestowed on him under the U. P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1964 and had also claimed that the amount of the rent had since been paid and, therefore, the benefit of Sections 114 and 114-A of the T. P. Act should be granted to the defendant. Both the trial court and the lower appellate court rejected the plea of the defendant and have refused to grant any benefit under Ss. 114 and 114-A of the T. P. Act. This is how the defendant has come up before this Court in second appeal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short point that has been argued in this appeal is about the applicability of Ss. 114 and 114-A of the T. P Act to the facts of the present case. Before entering into the controversy it will be appropriate to look into the relevant provisions of T, P. Act.

(3.) In the present case, what has happened is that the defendant was let out an open piece of land in the year 1920 under the lease in question and one of the conditions in the lease was that if the tenant failed to pay the rent of two years, he would be liable to ejectment. When the defendant failed to pay the rent of more than two years, a notice purporting to be under Section 106 of T. P. Act was served on him determining his tenancy. In this notice the plaintiff relied upon the aforementioned condition in the lease deed regarding non-payment of rent and also on the ground that the defendant, in violation of the terms of the lease deed had raised Pakka construction on the land. It was a 30 days' notice to the defendant which purported to be under Section 106 of the T. P. Act. The defendant, in reply to this notice, vide Ex-7 stated that the land had been taken by the defendants at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per year for constructing the house and that under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the land has become the Bhumidari of the defendant and the plaintiff was left with no title to the said property and that he was not liable to pay any rent also. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed a suit and in paragraphs Nos. 7 and 18 of the written statement the defendant again asserted that the plaintiff's right had come to an end under the Act and that the defendant had become the owner of the land and as such was not liable to be ejected.