M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Punjab, Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar and the Principal, Government Girls High School, Kot Mahant Ram Saran Dass, Putlighar, Amritsar challenging the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) THE facts of the case as revealed in the orders passed by both the Courts below are that on 19.11.1934 Akhara Nirbansar gave on lease for 50 years, the land measuring 2 kanals comprised in Khata No. 79/112-113, bearing Khasra Nos. 251, 254 and 252 min and present Khasra No. 391 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1932-33 situated in abadi Kot Ram Saran Dass Putlighar, Amritsar. The lease deed was registered and executed in favour of one Amar Nath son of Ralia Ram. The period of 50 years was to commence w.e.f. 1.5.1938 because till that time some one else was in possession. The lessee constructed a school building on the land and floated a trust named as Master Daulat Singh Memorial Trust Society (for brevity, 'the Trust'). The Trust through its President Sadhu Singh gifted the school to the appellant-State of Punjab on 6.7.1994. The lease amount was earlier used to be paid by Amar Nath, the lessee. But after the gift the State of Punjab started paying the lease amount. The period of 50 years was to expire on 30.4.1988 and, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent served a legal notice with a request to hand over possession of the land to the plaintiff-respondent who is the present Mahant and Administrator of Akhara Nirbansar. The defendant-appellants did not hand over possession of the suit land which resulted into filing of Civil Suit Nod. 300 of 1989, instituted on 2.12.1989 seeking possession of the land. A further prayer was also made for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-appellants to demolish the building constructed on the land and to deliver its vacant possession relying on the terms of lease deed. It was claimed that statutory period of two months as required under the law has been given and the defendant-appellants have failed to demolish the building. The defendant-appellants took the stand that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of plaintiff-respondent because he is not authorised agent nor he is competent to sign and verify the plaint. It has further been asserted that the property has vested in the State of Punjab as it has been donated to it by Amar Nath. Therefore, the State of Punjab was required to be impleaded as party. The defendant-appellants also set up the plea that they are tenants over the suit property, regularly paying rent and, therefore, the suit for possession was not maintainable. However, it was submitted that the suit land was on lease with the Trust. The plea of subletting by Amar Nath was also denied claiming that it was donated by a gift deed in favour of State of Punjab. The defendant-appellants still further asserted that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellants and the suit has been filed only to get the rent enhanced.
(3.) THE trial court on the basis of pleadings framed large number of issues. Issues Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9 are core issues and the same read as under :- 5. Whether Babu Amar Nath s/o Ralia Ram took on lease the land measuring 2 Kanals detailed in para 3 of the plaint vide lease deed dated 19- 11-34 for 50 years ? OPP 6. Whether the period of the lease has since expired, if so, it effect ? OPP 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property ? OPP 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction prayed for ? OPP Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on the aforementioned issues holding that Amar Nath has taken the land on lease from the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff- respondent and the lease period of 50 years had expired. On the expiry of lease period on 30.4.1988, the plaintiff-respondent has become entitled to get back the possession. It has further been found that according to the lease deed Ex. P2, the lessee was entitled to construct the building of the leased land on the expiry of lease period and on expiry of the lease period, he was to get the construction demolished at his own expense. If on the expiry of the lease, the construction is not demolished, then the lessor or his successor-in-interest was to become owner of the building as well in accordance with the stipulation of the lease deed. The version of the defendant-appellants that they had become tenant under the plaintiff- respondent was rejected. The plaintiff-respondent has been held entitled for possession of the suit land.;