- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8-2-1980 passed by Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar in Civil Appeal No. 341 of 1970 arising out of a judgment and decree of Suit No. 115 of 1975.
(2.) THE above suit was filed by the present appellant for eviction of the respondents from the disputed land area 802 sq. yard situated in Plot No. 1345. It is admitted that Lala Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Sahai predecessors in title of the appellant were Zamindars of the said plot. In the year 1882 it was let out to the Crown. THE Civil Surgeon, Bulandshahar A. G. Bilcock executed a registered lease deed in their favour agreeing to pay Rs. 12/- per year as rent and that the land shall be used only for women's Hospital only. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the women's Hospital has been shifted to another building. That in the building constructed in the disputed land there is Veterinary Hospital, library and few residences. It is also alleged that the rent had not been paid since 31-3-1952 hence the suit was filed. The respondent contested the suit. However, the fact that the defendant is the tenant of the land and the ownership of the same of the appellant has not been denied. It has been pleaded that tenancy has not been forfeited as there was no clause for forfeiture. That the notice is not valid. That the suit is bad for want of notice under Sections 106, 111 and 114-A of Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the T. P. Act) and that the suit is also barred by time. The trial Court framed necessary issues and decreed the suit with costs for eviction as well as for recovery of rent. Aggrieved by it the defendant- respondent preferred Civil Appeal No. 341 of 1978 which has been allowed solely on the ground that the notice of termination of tenancy is invalid and tenancy has not been terminated in accordance with law and provisions of Sections 111 (g) and 114-A of the T. P. Act have not been complied with. Therefore, this second appeal was filed by the plaintiff.
(3.) THIS second appeal was admitted on 10-3-1981 on the substantial questions of law firstly whether the respondent was a lessee or a licensee of the disputed land and secondly whether the defendant has done any thing on the land such as to enable the plaintiff to determine the licensee or the lessee as the case may be. I have heard Shri R. B. Singhal, learned for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent and therefore could not be heard. However, I have gone through the record.;