- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) REVISION is withdrawn/treated to be withdrawn to this Court under Section 24, C. P. C. This revision is directed against order dated 5-10-1988 passed by Civil Judge, Rampur rejecting the execution application of plaintiff applicant numbered as execution case No. 24 of 1986 filed for execution of decree passed in second appeal No. 1458 of 1974 by this Court on 5-10-1981 (reported in Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State & Ors. , AIR 1981 All. 396) arising out of O. S. No. 109 of 1972 filed by plaintiff applicant against defendant respondents. The relief claimed in the suit was for a decree directing the defendants to renew the lease of land admeasuring 39. 08 acres for a further period of 30 years w. e. f. 10-5-1972. The case set up in the plaint was that the erstwhile princely State of Rampur entered into an agreement dated 28-10-1941 with M/s. J. L. Kamlapati Singhaniya agreeing to grant the land in dispute on certain terms. The plaintiff came to acquire the rights of M/s. J. L. Kamlapati Singhaniya under that agreement with certain modifications in a series of transactions. Thereafter, Government of Rampur (which was a princely state at that time) made the grant of the land in dispute to the plaintiff by an instrument dated 29-6-1949. The essential terms of the lease dated 29-6-1949 were that the lease would operate from 10-5-1942 and terminate on 9-5-1972, that the land in question admeasuring 39. 08 acres, which was at that time in possession of the plaintiff, might be held by the lessee free of rent during the period of the said lease, that all buildings, bungalows, factories, go-downs, offices, outhouses etc. constructed by previous lessee J. L. Kamlapati Singhaniya and transferred by them to the plaintiff would be deemed to have been constructed with the consent of the lessor and lessee was granted right to reconstruct other buildings, that on the expiry of the period of the lease, it could be renewed for a further period of 30 years on the same terms and conditions and after the lapse of 60 years from 10-5-1942, the plaintiff would have the option to acquire full ownership of the said land on payment of Rs. 19,500/- to the lessor. The other important clause in the lease-deed was that in the event of lease not being renewed on the expiry of the period of lease the lessee will be entitled to sell or remove the buildings, plant machinery etc. unless the State pays to the lessee compensation at a figure to be mutually agreed upon (these facts and terms are mentioned in the judgment of the second appeal also ).
(3.) IN the second appeal, it was held that the deed of 29-6-1949 was not a lease-deed but a rent free grant under Government Grants Act, 1895 (previously known as Crown Grants Act, 1895 ). It was further held that the right conferred on the plaintiff by the last aforesaid clause (of renewal and purchase) was indefeasible and the plaintiff had asked for the renewal that the Government could not refuse it. It was further held that the plaintiff had asked for the renewal and the Defendant State acted illegally in refusing to renew the grant for a period of 30 years from 10-9- 1972. (Para-8 ). In the second appeal, it was held that the instrument in question could not be treated to be a lease- deed because there was no consideration mentioned as required by Section 105 of the T. P. Act, however, in para-7, it was further held that "be that as it may, the validity of the instrument does not seem to have been challenged at the trial on the ground of want of consideration in the sense in which it is required for lease as defined by Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act and this aspect of the matter need detain me no longer".;