R.B.MEHROTRA, J. - (1.) THE Present Second Appeal has been instituted by the defendant/appellant.
(2.) THE facts necessary for decision of the appeal are as under : Harishanker Lal plaintiff filed suit No. 131/80 in the Court of Munsif Mathura against Ram Sarup etc. defendants. In short the plaintiff alleged in the plaint, the disputed land described at the foot of the plaint had been taken on rent by the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The aforesaid land had been given on rent for the purpose of parking Vehicles etc. In those times, the aforesaid land was outside the purview of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 47 nor the said land was embraced by the provisions of Act No. 13/72. It was also alleged in the plaint that the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff raised permanent construction over the vacant land. On the above basis the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant in respect of the land in suit by serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The aforesaid suit was filed for dispossessing the defendant from the disputed property the other prayer was for a decree at the rate of Rs. 1107- per month for use arid occupation of the said land by the defendant.
(3.) THE defendants contested the said suit. The trial court framed issues on the pleadings of the parties. Out of the said issues, the following issues are relevant for "adjudication in the context of the decision of the present appeal. Issue No. 1. - Whether the tenancy of the defendant is in respect of land? Issue No. 4. - Whether the defendant is entitled to benefit of Section 29A of U.P. Act No. 13/72. If so its effect? Issue No. 6. - Whether the tenancy of the defendant is permanent ? ;