M.N.Shukla, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal came to us on a reference made by a learned single Judge in view of "the importance and the difficulty of the question involved therein."
(2.) THE main point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the defendant-respondents were the lessees of the plaintiff-appellant or only his licensees. In order to appreciate the point certain facts need be stated. The appellant filed a suit giving rise to this appeal for possession after demolition of the constructions over the land in dispute and for the recovery of Rs. 900.00 by way of past damages for use and occupation for the period from 1-6-1944 to 30-6-1947 and also for the recovery of pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rupees 25.00 per month.
(3.) THE plaint allegations were that the plaintiff was the owner of a big plot of land, that in June 1944 the eastern portion of this land was taken by the defendants on payment of Rs. 25.00 per month with a definite promise that the defendants would use the said portion of the plaintiff's land during the period of the second World War and would not make any construction thereon and they would also vacate it immediately on the plaintiff's demand after the end of the war, that despite these terms and conditions and the repeated demands made by the plaintiff in this regard after the end of the war the defendants did not give up the disputed land from their use and occupation; on the other hand, they made constructions over a part thereof without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and against the terms and conditions originally settled, that their possession had now become that of a trespasser and hence they were liable for ejectment and also to pay damages mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the relief for possession of the land after demolition of the constructions made by the defendants and also for recovery of damages.;