1977 (3) TMI 166 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal granted, plaintiff wins possession. Damages claim denied. Costs awarded. Certificate for Supreme Court appeal denied.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' decision and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession over the disputed property. The claim ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.2. Status of the defendant as a non-occupancy tenant or trespasser.3. Entitlement to damages.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act:The primary issue in this case is whether the suit filed under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was maintainable. The trial court and the 2nd Additional Civil Judge held that the suit was not maintainable under Section 180 as the defendant was not a trespasser but a non-occupancy tenant. The appellant contended that the suit was maintainable under Section 180, arguing that the defendant's status as a sub-tenant ended with the surrender of the tenancy rights by the tenant-in-chief, and thus, the defendant was occupying the land without consent and otherwise than in accordance with the law.2. Status of the defendant as a non-occupancy tenant or trespasser:The status of the defendant on the date of the cause of action is crucial. Initially, the defendant was a sub-tenant under a lease for five years. However, the tenant-in-chief surrendered the land to the plaintiff on 14th September 1954. According to Section 47(1) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, the extinction of the tenant's interest extinguishes the interest of any tenant holding under him. Section 47(4) provides that a valid sub-lease continues to be binding for the remainder of the term or five years, whichever is shorter. The Supreme Court in Birendra Pratap Singh v. Gulwant Singh held that the rights granted by Section 47(4) are for a limited period, and once that period expires, the sub-tenant's rights are extinguished. Therefore, the defendant's sub-tenancy ended after the lease period, making his possession thereafter unauthorized.3. Entitlement to damages:The appellant claimed damages of Rs. 212/- for unauthorized occupation. However, the courts below did not record a definite finding on the quantum of damages due to the dismissal of the suit under Section 180. Upon review, it was found that the appellant did not provide cogent and satisfactory evidence to prove the damages. Consequently, the claim for damages was disallowed.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed to the extent that the judgment and decree of the lower courts were set aside, and the plaintiff's suit for possession over the disputed property was decreed. The claim for damages was disallowed due to lack of evidence. The appellant was awarded proportionate costs of the suit and the lower courts. An oral request for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court was refused, as the decision was based on an existing Supreme Court ruling.