- (1.) YASIN son of Habib has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Commis sioner, Meerut dated 15-1-1994.
(2.) BRIEFLY, stated, the facts of the case are that the property in question belongs to Gaon Sabha and the defendant appel lant got his name recorded in the land in suit over the property of Gaon Sabha and since then he is in cultivatory possession over the land in dispute. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant under Section 202 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act on the ground that the defendant-appellant is not paying rent as Asami of the land in suit and the land which was given to him as Asami is not being cultivated by the defendant-appel lant and the Gaon Sabha needs the land in question for some other purpose. S. D. O. after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence and on the basis of the evidence given by the parties the suit of the Gaon Sabha and ejected Yasin son of Habib from the land in dispute against which an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner. That too was dismissed by the learned Addition al Commissioner on 15-1-94. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. The patta for Asami is not given for life time to any person. It is given for a specific period and after which if Gaon Sabha needs the land for some other pur pose other than agriculture etc. then Gaon Sabha can very well file a suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act for eject ment of that person who is in occupation of the land in suit. The same procedure has been adopted by the Gaon Sabha on the basis of lease-holder for not depositing the rent of the land and for the need of land by the Gaon Sabha, for other than the agricul ture purpose. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding in which I find no illegality or material irregularity which needs interference at this stage, when the statement of Lekhpal does not prove the cultivatory possession of the defendant-appellant over the land in dispute.
(3.) I, therefore, find no force in the second appeal and it is accordingly dis missed. Appeal dismissed. .;