Kunwar Bahadur Asthana, J. - (1.) In this appeal by the defendant tenant from a decree of eviction passed against him the only point which arises for determination is whether the accommodation which the defendant occupied as a tenant of the plaintiff was constructed after the year 1951. The plaintiff averred, inter alia, in the plaint that the building in which the accommodation in question was occupied by the defendant was erected between the years 1951 and 1952 and was let out to the defendant in the year 1953, hence the provisions of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 were not applicable. The defendant in his written statement raised the plea that he was a tenant in the accommodation in suit from before 1950 and the provisions of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act being applicable, the suit of the plaintiff was barred by S. 3 of the said Act. I am not concerned in this appeal with the other pleas raised by the parties.
(2.) The learned Munsif on the pleadings of the parties framed seven issues out of which issues numbers 1 and 2 are relevant for my purpose. Issue No. 1 was: Whether the constructions in suit are a post -1950 construction? Issue No. 2 was: Whether the suit is barred by S. 3, UP Act III of 1947? Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case on the first issue. On behalf of the plaintiff three witnesses were examined and a large number of documents were filed. On behalf of the defendants four witnesses were examined and some documents were filed. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned Munsif on issue No. (1) found that the accommodation in dispute was not a post -1950 construction. On issue No. (2) the finding was that no permission of the DM having been obtained for instituting the suit for eviction, the suit was barred u/S. 3 of the UP Act III of 1947. On other issues the learned Munsif found in favour of the plaintiff landlord. The result was the suit for eviction was dismissed but decreed for recovery of some amount as arrears of rent. The plaintiff landlord appealed. The learned Civil Judge who heard the appeal reversed the finding recorded by the learned Munsif on the first issue and recorded a finding in the following words: - - After going through all the oral and documentary evidence on the record and taking the circumstances and probabilities of the case into consideration and drawing legitimate inferences, I am of the view that the accommodation in suit is a post -1950 construction and the suit for ejectment is thus not barred by Act III of 1947.
(3.) The appeal was allowed and a decree for eviction of the defendant appellant was passed.;