B. Dayal, J. - (1.) This second appeal has been referred to this Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court because of a conflict in two single Judge decisions of this Court.
(2.) The facts of the case are very simple and are not in controversy. The defendant was a zamindar of the land. He got one Bachchu Tewari and Ram Adhar Tewari who were tenants of the land ejected under Sec. 171 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. After ejecting these two tenants on the 19th of April 1944 the defendant let out this land for agricultural purposes by a registered Patta in favour of the plaintiff. In that transaction the defendant accepted Rs. 950 as premium or Nazrana and settled the land with the plaintiff at Rs. 7 per year as rent and conferred hereditary rights upon the plaintiff. Subsequently by an amendment of the U.P. Tenancy Act it was enacted that Bachchu Tewari and Ram Adhar Tewari could take back possession of the land and consequently they filed a suit which was decreed and it was held that they would be entitled to take back possession after 1357F Thus having lost possession of the land after 1357F the present plaintiff has filed this suit for realisation of Rs. 950 which he paid as premium with interest at six per cent per annum from the defendant landlord. The defendant contested the suit and denied his liability to pay the same. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit and the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the claim for realisation of Rs. 950 plus interest on two grounds. In the first place his contention is that there was a clear agreement in the document of lease itself that if the plaintiff was ejected upon any ground whatever he would be entitled to take back the premium of Rs. 950 and secondly his contention is that in any case on account of the legislation the contract between the parties became void and under Sec. 65 of the Indian Contract Act the landlord defendant was bound to refund the advantage which he obtained from the plaintiff under the contract and he contends that this sum of Rs. 950 was the advantage which the defendant landlord obtained under the contract and which he must refund after the contract became void.;