JUDGMENT : This is an appeal by the defendant arising out of a suit for recovery of rent and ejectment.

2. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was the Bhumidhar of plot No. 211 and that a portion of it was under his cultivation and in the other portion he had certain thatched constructions which had been let out to the defendant on a payment of Rs. 126/- per annum with the further stipulation that in case the defendant committed default in the payment of rent for a period of three years he will be liable to ejectment. The defendant failed to pay the stipulated rent on demand and hence the suit.

3. The defendant asserted that the rent had been paid but that the plaintiff did not issue a receipt for the same. The jurisdiction of the Court was also challenged and it was alleged that the rights of the plaintiff in the suit had been extinguished.

4. One of the issues that arose in the suit was as to whether the land was used for a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture and poultry farming. This issue was referred to the Assistant Collector, Incharge of the sub-division, under Section 331-A of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and he recorded a finding that the land was not used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture etc.

5. As regards the question of jurisdiction, the trial Court held that the jurisdiction lay in the Civil Court inasmuch as on account of the provisions of Section 143 of that Act, no suit for ejectment or arrears of rent could be filed in the revenue Court. The trial Court treated the finding given by the Assistant Collector on issue No. 7 as a declaration under Section 143 of the Act and it was on this account that he held that the suit could be tried by him.

6. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit and the defendant has now come up in appeal.

7. It has been contended before me that inasmuch as there was no declaration under Section 143 (2) of the Act, the provisions of Chapter VIII of that Act were applicable and inasmuch as letting out had been admitted by the plaintiff. the appellant became the sirdar of the land. It was further contended that the trial Court fell into an error in treating the finding given by the Assistant Collector on issue No. 7 as a declaration under Section 143 of the Act. Counsel for the respondent has, however, urged that inasmuch as the land was not being used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture etc., the land had ceased to be land as defined in Section 3 sub-clause (14) of that Act and the embargo imposed against letting out of land did not apply to land which did not answer the description of land as contained in Section 3 (14) of that Act. He has further contended that the order passed on a reference under Section 331-A sub-sec. (2) of the Act has the effect of a declaration under Section 143 (2) of that Act and as such the rights of the plaintiff as Bhumidhar continued even in spite of the letting inasmuch as the provisions of Chapter VIII were not applicable to the disputed land.

In order to decide the controversy between the parties it will be useful to set out the provisions of Section 143 of the Act :-

"S. 143. - Use of holding for industrial or residential purposes - (1) Where a bhumidhar uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division may suo motu or on an application, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, make a declaration to that effect.

(1-A) Where a declaration under subsection (1) has to be made in respect of a part of the holding, the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-division may, in the manner prescribed, demarcate such part for the purpose of such declaration.

(2) Upon the grant of the declaration mentioned in sub-section (1) the provisions of this chapter (other than

Click Here to Read the rest of this document