- (1.) DEOKI Nandan, J. This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for in junction restraining the defendant-respondent from evicting the appellants by force or from demolishing the building on the land in suit. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it, hence the second appeal. The land in suit was obtained on a lease dated 3-8-1906 from the Munici pal Board of Varanasi as the Manager of the Nazul on behalf of the Govern ment. The lease was for a period of 30 years and a Dharamshala having been constructed thereon by the lessee Ayodhya Prasad hag created a trust for mana ging it under a deed dated 13-6-1921. The trust named Sri Krishna Dharam shala Trust Englishia Line, Varanasi City, is the first plaintiff-appellant and Gopi Krishna, the Managing Trustee, is the second plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff's case was that the lease was a permanent one. They also pleaded that after the expiry of the 30 years term, they had been allowed to remain in possession of the land and had by way of precaution applied for renewal of the lease which was sanctioned and they had also paid rent at the enhanced rate on 4-1-1954, but a renewed lease was not executed in spite of demand. The plaintiff's complaint was that instead of doing so the defendant-respondent passes a resolution No. 9 dated 10-1-1966 for evicting the plaintiff-appellants and settling the land with others. The plaintiffs came to know of it on 1-2-1967. The defendant's case was that the description of the property given at the foot of the plaint was not correct, that the plaintiffs alone had no right to sue, and that the term of the lease having expired, the defendant had every right to eject the plaintiffs or the successors of the original lessee Ayodhya Prasad, as the case may be, and to settle the land with anybody or to deal with or use it in any manner it likes. However, the existence of any such resolution No. 9 dated 10-1-1966, as alleged by the plaintiffs, was denied. The following were the issues on which the parties went to trial :- 1. Whether the plaintiff No- 1 is permanent lessee of the land in suit ?
(2.) WHETHER defendant has no right to eject the plaintiff from the land in suit ? Whether Ayodhya Prasad had any right to create any trust in res pect of the land in suit ? Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?
(3.) IS the suit bad for want of a notice under Sec. 571 of U. P. Act 2 of 1959 ? Whether plaintiff has served valid notice u/s 571 of U. P. Act 2 of 1959 on the defendant ?;