HUKAM CHAND Vs. HAMAM SINGH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Brahma Singh Verma, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1980 passed by Civil Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1978.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case, giving rise to this second appeal, as per plaint's case are, that plaintiffs/respondents are the owners of vacant plot of land bearing No. 46 Saharanpur Road, Dehradun. This land was let out to defendant/appellant @ Rs. 15/ - per month. Before filing the regular suit on the ground of default, one month's notice was given to the defendant to terminate his tenancy, which was served upon him and ultimately the tenancy was terminated. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing his written statement alleging that one Sri Gopal Krishan has taken on rent the premises in suit from its previous owner for establishing a mill to manufacture Dal, Maida, Suji and flour, etc. and has installed mill and machineries for the manufacture of the aforesaid articles. It was also alleged that when the defendant took the premises in suit on rent, the aforesaid machineries were installed. The defendant has taken the premises in suit for manufacturing purposes. The defendant was ready to pay the rent of the premises. He further alleged that he also installed an electric connection in the year 1963 and invested huge amount in changing the machineries and in installing additional machineries for cotton ginning and grass cutter, etc. He has not committed any default in paying the rent. According to the plaintiff/respondent, vacant land was given to the appellant. D.W. 1 has stated that he has taken this land from Smt. Bhagwati Devi. He has also stated that an agreement paper No. 34 -Ka was executed in between the parties. After a perusal of paper No. 34 -Ka, the trial court as well as the appellate court gave a categorical finding on the issue that the land was not taken for manufacturing purposes. It was given temporarily for residence and business. By the judgment and decree dated 12.7.1978, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant/appellant preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Dehradun, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.1980. Further aggrieved, this second appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant. This second appeal was filed by the defendant/appellant before the Allahabad High Court and it got admitted on 6.1.1981. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, this case has been transferred to this High Court u/s. 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act. It transpires that at the time of admission, no substantial question(s) of law were framed. This Court, in exercise of Section 100(4) of C.P.C., frames the following substantial questions of law which arises for consideration: -
i) Whether the trial court has committed manifest error of law in not giving benefit of Section 29 -A of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972?
ii) Whether the trial court has committed manifest error of law in not giving benefit of Section 114 -A of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882?
iii) Whether the trial court has erred in law in not giving benefit of Section 60 of The Indian Easements Act, 1882?
(3.) THE pleas with regard to the substantial questions of law, which have been framed in this appeal, have been taken before the learned trial court and the learned trial court has given a specific finding on these issues as to why the benefit was not extended to the defendant/appellant.
Question No. 1;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.