B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment and damages etc. The appeal was dismissed by me on 29 -7 -1991 summarily but reasons were to follow. These are the reasons. The plaintiff has purchased the shop in suit from its owner and appellant No. 2 Jamuna Shanker was a tenant in it and was running the said shop and paying rent at the rate of Rs. 400 per month. On 31 -3 -1982 the licence of Jamuna Shankar, tenant came to an end for the year 1982 -83. Devendra Singh, appellant No. 1 obtained the licence for country made liquor for 1982 -83. Jamuna Shankar surrendered the shop on 31 -3 -1982 in favour of the plaintiff respondent and handed over possession to him and executed a surrender deed 31 -A (Ext. 4) and vacated the shop. The appellant No. 1 requested the plaintiff to grant him licence for the shop for a month so that he might run his shop and in the mean while he would search for some other accommodation. The plaintiff granted a licence to appellant No. 1 (vide 32 -A, Ext. 3) to run the shop for a month since 1 -4 -1982. The licence came to an end on 3 -4 -1982, but he did not vacate the possession. Even though the licence came to an end on 30 -4 -1982 but for the sake of precaution the plaintiff served a notice terminating tenancy and to vacate the possession, and filed the instant suit.
(2.) THE defendants contested the suit denying plaint allegations and alleging that the licence to run the shop was only in the name of appellant No. 1, Devendra Singh, but appellant No. 2 Jamuna Shankar was also a Co -licensee and appellant No. 2 did not execute any surrender deed in favour of the plaintiff respondent on 31 -3 -1982 nor handed over possession to him, rather his tenancy continued. It was tried to pay rent after 30 -4 -1982 but the plaintiff did not accept it. In case there is any document written by the defendant appellants, that is a forgery under the pressure of police. The trial court decreed the suit and lower appellate court has dismissed the defendants appeal. The appeal by the defendants has been filed to set aside the decrees of the courts below.
(3.) SRI N. Lal, learned counsel for the appellants urged that no issue about surrender by Jamuna Shankar was framed under Order 14, Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, Code) hence no finding could have been recorded on it. The trial court decreed the suit holding that a licence under Section 2A of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, (Act No. 13 of 1972), (for short, the Act), was created in favour of appellant No. 1 and lower appellate court held that as it was a non -residential accommodation, hence no licence could be created under Section 2A, rather it can be under the Easement Act and appellants continued as tenants even without order of allotment and lease came into existence, the courts below erred in decreeing the suit. Reliance was placed on Udho Das v. Pooran Prakash and others : AIR 1964 All 1; Nanak Ram v. Kundal Rai : AIR 1986 SC 1194; Munni Devi v. Smt. Radha Devi : 1989 ALR 238.;