Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri J.N. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava for the appellants and Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. assisted by Shri Rohit Agrawal for the respondents.
(2.) THIS second appeal filed in September 1984 arises out of Original Suit No.212 of 1981 for arrears of rent, damages and eviction of U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. through its Chairman, defendant No. 1 and General Manager, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd, Unit Bijnor, defendant No.2 from 3 bigha 8 biswa land in the tenancy of defendants vide registered lease deed dated 26.6.1976 for a fixed period upto 1387 F. (1980) at the annual rent of Rs. 850/ -, after a notice dated 10.12.1979 terminated the lease. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 14.4.1982 decreed the suit for damages at the rate of Rs. 850/ - per year with effect from the date ofxexpiry of the lease. The suit for ejectment, however, was dismissed. The Corporation filed Civil Appeal No.360 of 1982 and the plaintiffs Shri Vinod Chandra Gupta and another, filed a Civil Appeal No.297 of 1982. The civil appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed. The civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs, however, was allowed with costs and the suit for ejectment was also decreed with recovery of Rs. 850/ - for the year 1981 and damages at the rate of Rs. 85O/ - on payment of the Court fees. The defendant -Corporation was directed to hand over the vacant possession by 01.9.1984. The Second Appeal No.2436 of 1984 arises out of Civil Appeal No.297 of 1982 and the Second Appeal No.2444 of 1984 arises out of Civil Appeal No.360 of 1982 decided by the Appellate Court by a common judgment and decree dated 01.8.1984. The second appeal was admitted on 15.10.1984 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Shiv Prasad Banarasi Das Sugar Mills, Bijnor being a scheduled undertaking as defined under the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act and the same having been acquired under this Act, the land lawfully occupied for the purpose of the factory including the lease -hold interest therein stood acquired thereunder and vested in the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., free from any debt, mortgage, charge or other encumbrance or lien, trust or similar obligation attaching to the undertaking and this being the correct position in law the relief sought for by the plaintiff -respondents could not have been granted? (2) Whether the plaintiff -respondents were not entitled in law to grant any alleged lease in favour of the mills and hence all their rights in the land stood extinguished and no advantage could be taken by them in law of the alleged declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951? (3) Whether the alleged declaration under Section 143 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 was illegal, the land in suit had vested in the State Government and now the Corporation became owner thereof? (5) Whether constructions of a permanent nature having been made, on the land in question within the knowledge of the plaintiff -respondents they had no right in law to evict the Corporation from the land in suit? (8) Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in law in assuming that the alleged tenancy was for a fixed period and stood automatically terminated by lapse of time?
(3.) AFTER several adjournments the second appeal was heard on 5th and 6th April, 2007 and the judgment was reserved. By an application dated 9th April, 2007, a brief note of written argument, with a document 'Report of Receiver for the Year 1973 -74', was filed. The Court rejects the attempt to introduce additional evidence at this stage.;