- (1.) THIS second appeal filed by the defendants is directed against a judgment and decree dated 5-1-1962 passed by the lower appellate court under which the claim of the plaintiff in respect of a shop situate in the town of Lucknow for possession and injunction has been decreed though the same had been dismissed by the trial court.
(2.) THE facts of the case as found by the courts below are that the plaintiff-respondent is a tenant of a shop which was a part of a big building owned by the defendants-appellants 1 to 3. This entire building including the shop in dispute was demolished by the landlords on 4-4-1958 in pursuance of a notice issued to them by the Municipal board. Lucknow under Section 265 (1) of the U. P. Municipalities Act. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for injunction on 17-4-1958 restraining the landlords from interfering with his possession over the said premises, offering at the same time to pay rent for these premises even in the condition in which they existed then and in the alternative praying for a decree for possession. During the pendency of the suit the landlords were injuncted by the trial court from making any construction on this land but sub-sequently this injunction was modified and the landlords were permitted to rebuild on this land at their own risk.
(3.) THE trial court found that since the shop which had been let out to the plaintiff-respondent was no more in existence, his tenancy rights had come to an end and he was not entitled to retain possession over the site of the shop. The lower appellate court did not agree with this view. According to that court the plaintiff was entitled to continue in possession of the premises so long as his tenancy was not determined according to one of the modes prescribed by law. The plaintiff's suit for possession and injunction was, accordingly, decreed.;