Judgment

GROVER, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a second appeal affirming the decree granted by the first appellate Court.

2. The facts may be stated. A suit was filed under Section 172 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939, hereinafter called the Act , by the plaintiff against four defendants for ejectment. It was alleged in the plaint that defendants 3 and 4 were previously the original tenants of the plots in dispute which were situate within the limits of the town area of Phulpur in the district of Allahabad. The original tenants relinquished their tenancy rights and gave up possession. After this a patta for agricultural purposes was executed in the year 1368 Fasli in favour of defendants 1 and 2 whereunder they got rights of agricultural tenants. Defendants 1 and 2 in violation of the provisions of the patta and the Act constructed a building on the plots in dispute and let that out to the State Bank of India, Phulpur. It was alleged that for the aforesaid reason the tenants namely defendants 1 and 2 were liable to be ejected. Defendants 3 and 4 were imploded as proforma defendants. In the written statement it was pleaded, inter alia, by defendants 1 and 2 that the building had been constructed by them with the sanction of the District Collector on April 4, 1960 when the Collector was the Receiver of the Phulpur Estate in which the demised plot was situate. The suit was dismissed by the Judicial Officer (City) Allahabad on the ground that the Collector who was acting as Receiver of the disputed land had given his consent for the construction of the building by the defendants which amounted to consent by the landholder for an improvement within Section 65 of the Act. The additional Civil Judge on appeal, however, held that there was nothing on the record to show that the Collector gave his permission in his capacity as Receiver for construction of the building. The appeal was allowed by him and the suit for ejectment was decreed.

3. The following points were agitated before the High Court on behalf of the defendant-appellants :

1. The suit was liable to be dismissed because the disputed plots were no longer agricultural land having been demarcated as non-agricultural area under Section 3 of the U.P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

2. The lease was not confined to agricultural purposes only.

3. The Collector had given his sanction for the construction of the building for the State Bank.

On the first point the High Court held that the provisions of the aforesaid Land Reforms Act did not affect the suit. The lease was found to have been given for agricultural purposes. The letters on which the defendants relied for the purpose of showing the permission of the Collector could not be construed in such a way as to infer any sanction by him to construct the building for the purpose of a bank. The building was also not constructed for the purpose for which the plots had been let.

4. By an order made on September 25, 1970 we called for a report on the question whether the notification issued by the U.P. Government dated July 25, 1964 applied to the land in dispute. If the notification was applicable then it would have been necessary to determine whether the suit was liable to abate under S. 5 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1954 as amended by U. P. Act 21 of 1966. As the parties were in dispute on the question whether the notification applied we called for a finding from the High Court in the matter. This course had to be adopted as a point had been raised about the suit having abated by virtue of the aforesaid notification. The High Court submitted a report dated January 4, 1971 expressing the opinion that the notification in question did not apply to the land in dispute. That conclusion was not challenged before us.

5. The only question which survives is whether the permission of the Collector had been obtained in his capacity as Receiver for con