- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 9.9.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 75/2010, Gautam Rohtagi vs. Chandra Kanta Jawahar Lal Public Charitable Trust & others.
(2.) In Original Suit no.-13/2004, Gautam Rohtagi vs. Chandra Kanta Jawahar Lal Public Charitable Trust & others, plaint case in brief was that Smt. Chandra Kanta Rohtagi was owner of the property 16/72, Civil Lines, Kanpur, who had executed registered lease dated 18.7.1975 in favour of plaintiff incorporating the terms of lease in respect of plot measuring 870 square yards (=727.40 square meters) situated in Bungalow no.-16/72, Civil Lines, Kanpur detailed at the foot of plaint. This was a lease in perpetuity on payment of Rs. 100/- per month as lease rent payable to the lessor and was registered on 19.11.1975. Said lease of perpetuity still exist. Plaintiff had been paying lease rent to Dr. Chandra Kanta Rohtagi during her life time till her death on 5.6.2003. After the grant of lease, plaintiff had permitted the defendant no.-1 (Chandra Kanta Jawahar Lal Public Charitable Trust) to use and occupy said land. At that time there were several trustees of the defendant no.-1 Trust including Chandra Kanta Rohtagi and plaintiff himself. Most of the trustees have expired and other trustees have resigned and defendants no. 2, 3 and 4 are now trustees, who are occupying the lease land on behalf of defendant no.-1 as licensee. The lease land was in form of open land, the license of which was granted to defendant no.-1 Trust. The plaintiff had revoked the license of defendant by serving notice dated 9.9.2003 and their license was terminated on expiry of 30 days of service of notice. But the defendants had not vacated the said disputed lease land and sent incorrect reply through their counsel. The lease land given in license was in form of open plot and defendants have allowed one person to keep tea stall in the corner of it, who had illegally made temporary tin shed (Gumti). Plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of possession of said disputed lease land given to defendant as in licnece, and for decree of mandatory injunction, for removal of construction raised by defendant and recovery of pendent lite and future mesne at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per day.
(3.) In original suit the written-statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.-1 Trust and defendant no.-2 Sandeep Rotahgi, a trustee. By this written-statement, defendants no. 1 and 2 had not admitted most of the plaint averments and denied several facts of the plaint. They had not denied the execution of registered lease-deed by earlier owner of disputed property Smt. Chandra Kanta Rohatgi in favour of plaintiff Gautam Rohtagi and pleaded that alleged lease-deed was executed just prior to promulgation of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. The lease-deed was never intended by any of the parties to be implemented and acted upon, and in fact, they had never given effect to said lease-deed. No lease rent was ever paid by plaintiff to late Dr. Chandra Kant Rohtagi, and the plaintiff never took physical possession of alleged lease plot. Plaintiff never got his name mutated in records of Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika or Kanpur Development Authority. There was apprehension that Late Dr. Chandra Kanta Rohtagi may be found to be owning excess vacant land when the Urban Ceiling Land Act would be imposed, then she would lost said excess property. Therefore, lease-deed was executed with understanding to save said land from being acquired by the Government under said Act. So in spite of its execution, said registered lease was never executed. In absence of grant of any license, the point its revocation by plaintiff does not arises. Notice dated 9.9.2003 served by plaintiff upon defendants was without any substance, and correct reply thereto was sent on behalf defendant. The plaintiff's suit is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.;