- (1.) THIS second appeal, preferred un der Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04-12-2001, passed in Civil Appeal No. 370 of 1984 by Additional District Judge / I Fast Track Court, Dehradun, whereby the said appeal is dismissed confirming the decree passed by trial court in origi nal suit No. 203 of 1980.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that " plaintiff / respondent is owner and landlord of the land in suit in which the defendant / appellant was tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. The defendant / appellant failed to pay rent w. e. f. 01-09-1978. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defend ant has let out a portion of the land in suit to one Roshan Lal and another to one Bishamber Dayal, without consent of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plain tiff served a notice dated 18-09-1978 on 21-09-1978 determining his tenancy on expiry of thirty days of the notice, of the defendant who failed to deliver possession of the land of the plaintiff. With these facts original suit No. 203 of 1980 was instituted for ejectment of de fendant and for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The defend ant, U. P State Road Transport Corpo ration contested the suit and filed its written statement wherein tenancy was admitted. It was also admitted that the rent was paid up to July 1978. It was also admitted by the Corporation that the notice sent by plaintiff was received by it. However, rest of the pleas in the plaint were denied stating that land in question was taken on rent also for construction required for Bus stand. It was further pleaded that booking office, canteen, passengers shed etc. were constructed more than twelve years before the institution of suit by the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that since August 1978, plaintiff refused to accept the rent. It was denied that there was any sub letting to Roshan Lal or Bishamber Dayal. However, it is stated that they were given licenses to run canteen and Book stall. Lastly, it was pleaded in the written statement that provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the property in suit and the tenancy of the defendant ,is protected under Section 29-A of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Learned trial court framed fol lowing issues in the suit : 1. Whether, there exists any rela tionship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 2. Whether, the defendant raised construction without the consent of the plaintiff, if so, its effect ? 3. Whether, defendant has sub let the property in question as al leged in para 4 of the plaint, if so, its effect ? Whether, provisions of Act XIII of 1972 are applicable to the property in question?
(3.) WHETHER, the defendant is enti tled to the benefit of Section 29-A of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972? Relief? 4. Learned trial court after record ing the evidence and hearing the par ties, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, except issue No. 3 and de creed the suit on 31-03-1984 for ejectment of defendant and for recov ery of arrears of rent and mesne prof its. As to issue No. 3, the trial court held that property in suit was not sub let by the defendant but only licenses were granted to the contractors to run canteen etc. Aggrieved by the judg ment, defendant preferred civil appeal No. 370 of 1984 before the District Judge, Dehradun, which was trans ferred to the court of Additional District Judge/i Fast Track Court, Dehradun, and after hearing the parties the same was dismissed on 04-12-2001. Hence, this second appeal. 5. Following substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal : 1. Whether, the courts below have rightly held that the tenancy of" the appellant' is not protected under Section 29 (A) (2) of the U. P Act XIII of 1972, despite the admission on the part of plain tiff that Pucca construction was raised ten years before suit and no objection was raised against the raising of constructions ? 2. Whether, the courts below have rightly held that suit was main tainable irrespective of the fact that the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 were applicable to the properties and the tenancy was protected under Section 29-A of said Act ? 6. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Answer to substantial ques tions of law No. 1 and 2 :;