M.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal arising out of suit for ejectment, recovery of rent and damages.
(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that he was owner of a piece of land which he purchased, for constructing his own house, from Jagannathpuri Housing Cooperative Society, Mathura. He raised the boundary wall on all the four sides and also fixed a gate to that. Since he was in service and wanted to settle after his retirement, this property was purchased. He let out this open piece of land to the defendant on the following terms and conditions :- (i) The tenancy will start from 8.1.1968 and the monthly rent shall be Rs. 75/- per month which shall be payable every month after obtaining receipt. (ii) The lessee would not allow any sub-tenant nor he will raise any construction kachha or pucca over the disputed land though he may put a thatch or a tin-shed over the same. (iii) The tenancy shall be for one year but it can be extended up to five years. After the expiry of five years the defendant would vacate the land. (iv) If the defendant-appellant did not pay rent for two months he shall be liable to ejectment. (v) If the defendant does not vacate the land after the receipt of notice from the plaintiff-respondent, he will be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The defendant stopped paying the rent with effect from 8.12.1971. A notice was served on him terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears of rent but neither he paid the rent nor vacated the premises. So the necessity of filing the suit arose.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that the disputed land was let out by the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. The lease granted by the plaintiff was a permanent one. The defendant was entitled to raise permanent construction over the same. He has invested about Rs. 5,000/- and raised the construction with the consent of the landlord. The rent up to 12the December, 1971 had been paid by the defendant. After that, the rent was sent by money order which was refused by the plaintiff. The notice terminating the tenancy was not served on him. He was entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The jurisdiction of the Court was also challenged. It was stated that the suit should have been filed in the Court of Judge Small Causes.;