- (1.) THIS is the defendant' second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages, etc.
(2.) THE plaintiff' allegations in brief are these. The plaintiff-respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The defendant-appellant Pratap Narain was employed as a worker in the factory of the said Company at Kalpi Road. The plaintiff Company took on rent some of the Kamla Town Trust quarters from the landlord thereof with a view to allot the said quarters to its own employees for their use and occupation during the period of their employment. In consideration of the Defendant' employment and, in fact, as a part of his contract of employment, the defendant was allowed to occupy quarter No. 3/16 on a monthly rent of Rs. 16.25 and the understanding was that he would continue to occupy the said quarter as long as he was in the plaintiff' employment and would vacate the same and deliver its vacant possession to the plaintiff as soon as his services were terminated and the employment stood determined. The defendant resigned from service on the 23rd February, 1963 and his resignation was accepted. His services were terminated with effect from 1st of March, 1963. The plaintiff sent a Registered notice on 21-3-1963 to the defendant calling upon him to vacate the said quarter within seven days. A subsequent notice dated 20-5-1963 was sent to the defendant to vacate the said quarter and deliver vacant possession within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. However, the defendant failed to comply with the said notices and hence arose the necessity of filing the suit in question. It was claimed that the suit was covered by Section 3 (1) (g) of the U. P. Act III of 1947 and consequently no permission of the District Magistrate was necessary for filing the suit for ejectment. In the alternative, it was pleaded that the defendant was a licensee and the licence had been revoked prior to the institution of the suit. Arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation were also claimed. The defendant contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the termination of the employment was illegal and the dispute was pending before the Labour Court, that the notices served by the plaintiff were invalid and illegal, that he was not a licensee but a tenant and that the suit was not covered by Section 3 (1) (g) of the U. P. Act III of 1947 and the same was barred by Section 3 of the said Act. The defendant also claimed gratuity, bonus and unpaid wages, etc. After framing the necessary issues the trial Court tried the suit and dismissed the same. The defendant' counter-claim in respect of gratuity was decreed. The plaintiff filed an appeal in the Lower Appellate Court and the same was allowed. The plaintiff' suit was decreed in full and feeling aggrieved, the defendant has come up in the instant appeal to this Court.
(3.) IN support of the appeal I have heard Sri K. M. Dayal and in opposition Sri V. B. Upadhya has made his submissions.;