- (1.) A. P. Singh, J. Both these second appeals have been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure for questioning legality of the concurrent decree passed by IV Addl. Civil Judge, Lucknow dated 21-2-1990 in Suit No. 206 of 1982 and Suit No. 280 of 1983 which was confirmed by XV Addl. District Judge, Lucknow in Appeal Nos. 88 of 1991 and 95 of 1991 by judgment and decree dated 7-12-1991 decreeing the suits against appellants for eviction and payment of rent and for restraining the appellants from raising any structure over Plot No. 159, Mohalla Khas Bazar No. 3, Qaiserbagh, Lucknow.
(2.) SUIT No. 206 of 1982 was filed by Satyawati Devi and Dharm Raj Singh against the appellants Sube Din, Bhikhan and Anwar whereas SUIT No. 280 of 1983 was filed by Dharma Raj Singh against the three appellants. SUIT No. 280 of 1983 was filed for claiming the relief of possession from the defendants over the land in suit and recovery of rent and damages. SUIT No. 206 of 1982 was filed for injunction so as to prevent the appellants from raising any structure thereon. Since both the suits were between common parties and in respect of same land the trial Court heard and decided both the suits together. Parties led only one set of evidence in both the suits. Case of plaintiff-respondents was that the land in suit was heir 'adda Land' (land used for sale of animals ). It was let out to appellants for carrying out the business of sale and purchase of milk animals (cows and buffaloes) for a period of eleven months or. a monthly rent of Rs. 800/ -. With the land various provisions such as temporary covered space for tethering 80 animals, well and pumpset attached with it, temporary covered Kothari for keeping fodder for the animals, handpump etc. were provided therewith to enable appellants to carry out the business of sale and purchase of the animals. The arrangement between appellants and respondents was reduced in writing on a stamp paper of Rs. five. The allegation by respondent was that though the agreement was for eleven months but it was cunningly made five years and amount of rent too was reduced to the advantage of appellants. The case of respondent was that the land was not 'adda Land', on the con trary it was a building which was let out to them for a period of five years. For this reason according to the appellants the Suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. They sought protection of the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) ; they also denied that it was let out for carrying on the business of sale and purchase of the milk animals and that they did not commit default in the payment of rent. Appellants also raised the plea of want of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the suit.
(3.) BOTH the suits, as observed above, were decreed by the trial court and on appeal the lower appellate court upheld the decree of the trial court. It was inter alia held by the Courts below that what was let out by respondents to the appellants was 'adda Land' for allowing them to carry on the business of sale and purchase of milk animals only on a monthly rent of Rs. 800 and not building. Therefore, protection of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not available to the tenancy of the appellants. It was also held that the 'adda Land' was let out for carrying out the business of sale and purchase of milk animals whereas the respondents violated the condition of lease by converting the said land for the purpose of running the business of dairy (selling milk) and for their residence by constructing residential houses thereon. It was also held that appellants stopped payment of rent settled and therefore they were liable to pay the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 10,586 and damages after termination of tenancy to the extent of Rs. 2640. 00. Respondent Satyawati Devi was held to be owner of the land of which appellants were tenant. The trial Court further held that apart from tin shed for tethering animals and Kothari for keeping Bhoosa (cow fodder) no other construction was present at the time of the inception of the tenancy but the appellants illegally made construction of four rooms thereon unauthorisedly without obtaining permission from the owner of the 'adda Land'. On these findings the suit was decreed for eviction of appellants, recovery of rent and damages, demoli tion of unauthorisedly constructed structures from the land with the direction against appellants against raising any structure on the 'adda Land'. Feeling aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court, appellants filed appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure which too was dismissed by the lower appellate court which confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and upheld the decree passed by it.;