- (1.) THESE five second appeals are connected and can be decided together. The plaintiff is the State of Uttar Pradesh. Its case was that it was the owner of the disputed land which forms part of the Right Bhakra Canal. It leased out land to the defendants on various dates. According to its case, it leased out two plots of land to Arshad Ali on 25-9-1951 for three years. It further leased out a plot of land to Jaswant Singh defendant for three years on 10-7-1962. There was a lease executed in favour of Munshi Lal by the State on 10-7-1952 for three years and another lease executed in favour of Imtiaz Husain for a period of three years on 10-2-1952. In the case of Ram Prasad it is said that the plaintiff State leased out a plot to him on 10-7-1952 for a period of three years. The plaintiff' s case was that the defendants other than Ram Prasad had encroached on land adjacent to the plots leased out to them as shown in the site plan attached to the plaint. It is further the case of the plaintiff that under the terms of the lease the defendants were permitted to make temporary constructions on the leased out plots, but that the defendants in contravention of the terms of the lease had made permanent constructions thereon. It is necessary to add that according to the plaint case a rental was reserved under the terms of the lease deed. The plaintiff' s case was that the defendants had not paid rent for the period mentioned in the plaint, and that they had been served with a notice to quit under S. 106 of the T. P. Act, but they had not vacated the land. The plaintiff therefore, filed the suit and had prayed for a decree for eviction of the defendants from the land in dispute, and also for arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation of the land both comprised within the lease and also the land said to have been encroached upon. In the case of Ram Prasad no encroachment was alleged.
(2.) THE defendants contested the suit with the allegation that they were given grants of land for building purposes, and had been put into possession of the land and they had made permanent constructions thereon. THE defendants denied (except in the case of Ram Prasad where no allegation of encroachment was made) that they had encroached on any land belonging to the plaintiff. THE defence case further was that the plaintiff' s officers, and agents were aware that they were raising permanent constructions of a valuable nature on the land in suit in the belief that they were entitled to make these constructions, and as such, the suit for eviction was barred by estoppel and acquiescence. THE defendants further pleaded that they had paid rent to the plaintiff but had not been issued receipts of the rent received by the plaintiff. THE damages claimed for use and occupation was also asserted to be excessive. It was further pleaded that the defendants had not received any notice to quit and that notice, if any, had been waived. THE defence case further was that they had obtained an injunction from a Civil Court restraining the plaintiff from evicting them from the land in suit except in accordance with law. It was further pleaded that the Crown' s Grants Act did not apply to the territories of erstwhile State of Rampur when the grant was made, as had been asserted by the plaintiff. THE defendants, therefore, asserted that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as against them. The trial court framed the necessary issues. It was admitted before the trial court by the counsel for the plaintiff that the Crown Grants Act did not apply to the State of Rampur where the disputed land is admittedly situate. This finding was recorded on the basis of the concession made by the counsel for the plaintiff. Having found that the Crown Grants Act did not apply to the State of Rampur, the trial court held that the so called lease required registration under S. 107 of the T. P. Act and being an unregistered document, it was inadmissible in evidence. As regards encroachment the trial court held that the lease deeds being inadmissible the defendants were not lessees of the land in suit, and that the Commissioner' s report did not prove any encroachment, and as there was no further evidence to prove encroachment on behalf of the plaintiff, its case that the defendants other than Ram Prasad had encroached on the land was not proved. The trial court further found that the defendants were licensees of the plaintiff and were in possession in that capacity. It further found that the defendants had failed to prove that they had been granted a license of the land in dispute with permission to build thereon, and as such, the constructions were unlawful. Another finding of the trial court was that the constructions had been within the knowledge of the plaintiff' s servants and that the defendants' evidence that the ziledars and other employees of the plaintiff saw them making the constructions and advised them to construct in a particular way is correct, and as such, the suit for eviction was barred by estoppel and acquiescence. Having found that the defendants were not lessees of the land, the trial court found it unnecessary to determine whether the notice under S. 106 of the T. P. Act had been served on the defendants. It accordingly decreed the suit for recovery of what it called the premium for a licence which was equivalent to the rent agreed under the lease deed and dismissed the suit for other reliefs. The plaintiff filed an appeal. The lower appellate court agreed with the trial court that the lease deed was required to be registered and as it was not registered, it could not be admitted in evidence, but it looked into it for collateral purposes. It has held that if the lease deed is held to be a licence as held by the trial court, it could be looked into as a document granting licence, which required no registration. After referring to the decisions of various courts in the case of Chotey Lal v. Durga Bai (AIR 1950 All 661), Fateh Chand v. Mst. Radha Rani (1956 All LJ 625), Vadasseri Taravattil Karnavan v. Appaswami Konan (AIR 1955 NUC (Mad) 3950) and Ram Kishore V. Ambika Prasad (AIR 1966 All 515) it came to the conclusion that the lease deed (referred to as the deed of grant by the lower appellate court) could be looked into for collateral purpose of finding out the nature of possession of the defendants over the property and also of its extent.
(3.) THE lower appellate court therefore referred to the lease deed and found out the area leased out to the defendants. It further found on the basis of the lease deed that the defendants had been permitted to put up temporary chhappars on the land which could be removed on the expiration or determination of the grant. It further found that the lease deed gave the lessee the right to sublet the land with the permission of the Executive Engineer. It was further held by the lower appellate court again on the basis of the lease deed that if due to natural calamity the plaintiff remitted the whole or part of the rent, the lessees would remit the rent payable by their sub-tenants, if any. THE lower appellate court has also looked into the lease deed for finding out the period for which it was granted and for the amount of the rent reserved in the lease. It has also found with reference to the lease that there was a right of re-entry in the plaintiff under certain specified conditions. Having looked into the lease the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that under the lease deeds an interest in the property was created in favour of the defendants-respondents, and that the relation between the plaintiff and the defendants was that of a landlord and tenant. THE lower appellate court has observed in its judgment that as an interest in the property was created in favour of the defendants, they could not be deemed to be the licencees of the land in suit. In this connection the lower appellate court was impressed with the fact that under the lease deed the lessee was entitled to sublet the land. It has said in its judgment that a licence was not transferable, and hence, this was again an indication that the defendants were not licencees of the land in dispute. THE lower appellate court further held that the fact that rent had been offered and accepted and from other circumstances in the case a valid tenancy could be inferred. It, therefore, recorded a finding that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. After looking into the lease deed and the report of the petitioner (sic) (Commissioner?-Ed.) and the map prepared by him, it found that the area in possession of the defendants other than Ram Prasad was in excess of the area leased out and as such, encroachment by the defendants was established.;