R.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS , is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 21.1.1986 passed by Sri Umeshwar Pandey, II Additional District Judge, Allahabad decreeing Original Suit No. 125 of 1979 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. In order to understand the controversy, the brief facts of the case are these: It appears that the plaintiff is lessee of Plot No. 2 measuring 980 sq. feet in Mohalla Minhajpur. The lease was executed and registered on 14.1.1971 by the Collector, Allahabad on behalf of the U.P. State. The plaintiff fell ill and could not make construction. The defendant -tenant (revisionist) approached the plaintiff to let out a portion of the land to him for carrying certain business. The plaintiff agreed with the condition that if he was permitted by the State Government, a regular document of tenancy would be executed. The plaintiff would raise construction as per requirements of the defendant and if there is any deficiency in finance, the defendant would pay the same which would be adjusted in the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month. The rate of rent was settled at Rs. 400/ - per month. It was also agreed that the total contribution of the defendant towards expenditure of the constructions would not exceed Rs. 50,000/ -. There was a clear understanding that the plaintiff would execute the regular deed of lease in favour of the defendant for ten years on getting permission from the Government as the land belongs to the Government. However, a memorandum dated 2.9.1977 was prepared between the parties incorporating the conditions. It is a alleged that the plaintiff had made the construction of a room, a shed and boundary walls somewhere on or about 2.9.1977. The defendant was informed not to make any more constructions as the permission had not been received from the Government. So the defendant entered the premises and he was treated as a tenant by the plaintiff The tenancy was terminated according to the plaintiff on giving notice dated 16.1.1979 by registered post.
(2.) THE case of the defendant -revisionist is that the Collector was not competent to grant lease as it is not registered and also the Collector has no authority on behalf of the State to execute the lease and the plaintiff's possession would be of a trespasser The defendant -revisionist also denied that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties The defendant further challenged the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to try the suit. The defendant -revisionist also denied that any memorandum was executed on 2 -9 -1977 and it was described as forged and inadmissible in evidence. In other words, the case of the defendant is that he has made the construction incurring expenditure of more than Rs. 60,000/ -. The case was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 4.11.1981 but in a revision (Civil Revision No. 535 of 1981) under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This Court remanded the case with the observation that the case has not been properly tried to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant and the allegations in the plaint were vague Direction was given and the court below found that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the suit was decreed by the Small Cause Court Proper opportunity was given to the parties by the court below in view of the direction of this court while remanding the case.
(3.) SRI G.N. Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted with great force that the possession of the revisionist over the property is in the nature of irrevoidable licence under Section 60 of the Indian Easements Act. He further submitted that the Collector had no power to execute the lease under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. He further contended the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has not been established by the surrounding circumstances and the court below should not have relied upon on an unregistered memorandum creating the lease for more than one year. He further submitted that the directions of the Hon'ble High Court after the remand have not been complied with. He also contended that since the memorandum creating the lease is not registered, its copy cannot be relied upon under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act.;