An unregistered lease deed cannot be admitted in evidence to establish a relationship of landlord and tenant, but it can be referred to for determining the nature of the defendants' possession and the area encroached upon.

These five second appeals are connected and can be decided together. The plaintiff is the State of Uttar Pradesh. Its case was that it was the owner of the disputed land which forms part of the Right Bhakra Canal. It leased out land to the defendants on various dates. According to its case, it leased out two plots of land to Arshad Ali on 25-9-1951 for three years. It further leased out a plot of land to Jaswant Singh defendant for three years on 10-7-1962. There was a lease executed in favour of Munshi Lal by the State on 10-7-1952 for three years and another lease executed in favour of Imtiaz Husain for a period of three years on 10-2-1952. In the case of Ram Prasad it is said that the plaintiff State leased out a plot to him on 10-7-1952 for a period of three years. The plaintiff s case was that the defendants other than Ram Prasad had encroached on land adjacent to the plots leased out to them as shown in the site plan attached to the plaint. It is further the case of the plaintiff that under the terms of the lease the defendants were permitted to make temporary constructions on the leased out plots, but that the defendants in contravention of the terms of the lease had made permanent constructions thereon. It is necessary to add that according to the plaint case a rental was reserved under the terms of the lease deed. The plaintiff s case was that the defendants had not paid rent for the period mentioned in the plaint, and that they had been served with a notice to quit under S. 106 of the T. P. Act, but they had not vacated the land. The plaintiff therefore, filed the suit and had prayed for a decree for eviction of the defendants from the land in dispute, and also for arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation of the land both comprised within the lease and also the land said to have been encroached upon. In the case of Ram Prasad no encroachment was alleged.

2. The defendants contested the suit with the allegation that they were given grants of land for building purposes, and had been put into possession of the land and they had made permanent constructions thereon. The defendants denied (except in the case of Ram Prasad where no allegation of encroachment was made) that they had encroached on any land belonging to the plaintiff. The defence case further was that the plaintiff s officers, and agents were aware that they were raising permanent constructions of a valuable nature on the land in suit in the belief that they were entitled to make these constructions, and as such, the suit for eviction was barred by estoppel and acquiescence. The defendants further pleaded that they had paid rent to the plaintiff but had not been issued receipts of the rent received by the plaintiff. The damages claimed for use and occupation was also asserted to be excessive. It was further pleaded that the defendants had not received any notice to quit and that notice, if any, had been waived. The defence case further was that they had obtained an injunction from a Civil Court restraining the plaintiff from evicting them from the land in suit except in accordance with law. It was further pleaded that the Crown s Grants Act did not apply to the territories of erstwhile State of Rampur when the grant was made, as had been asserted by the plaintiff. The defendants, therefore, asserted that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as against them.

3. The trial court framed the necessary issues. It was admitted before the trial court by the counsel for the plaintiff that the Crown Grants Act did not apply to the State of Rampur where the disputed land is admittedly situate. This finding was recorded on the basis of the concession made by the counsel for the plaintiff. Having found that the Crown Grants Act did not apply to the State of Rampur, the trial court held that the so called lease required registration under S. 107 of the T. P. Act and being an unregistered document, it was inadmissible in evidence. As regards e