JUDGMENT :- This is a defendant tenant's appeal from a decree of her eviction from a house, for recovery of arrears and damages.

2. It appears that the father of the defendant appellant in 1938 took on lease the premises in suit, commonly described as Garden House, situate in a decent locality of Varanasi City, from the father of the plaintiff respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- for residential purposes. In course of time the father of the plaintiff as well as of the defendant died. The plaintiff as the heir became the owner of the premises in suit and the defendant as heir of her father succeeded to the tenancy. In due course the rent was increased to Rs. 125/- per month. The plaintiff was married to a gentleman who was residing outside Varanasi with the family being in service. When the plaintiff's husband retired from service the family came back to Varanasi and the plaintiff was desirous of securing residence in her own property, that is, the Garden House, the premises in suit. She made an application under Section 3 of U. P. Act 3 of 1947 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for grant of permission to bring a suit for eviction of the defendant tenant. This application was opposed on behalf of the defendant appellant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties granted the necessary permission. This order was confirmed in revision by the Commissioner and as well as by the State Government under Section 7-F of the said Act. The plaintiff then by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 19-5-1965 terminated the tenancy of the defendant and asked her to vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the receipt thereof. The defendant gave a reply to the notice raising certain objections and did not vacate the premises. The plaintiff then instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal. The main cause of action pleaded was the termination of the tenancy by a notice and the refusal of the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the premises in suit to the plaintiff. Besides claiming the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month the plaintiff claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant mainly on the plea that permission granted under Section 3 of U. P. Act 3 of 1947 was null and void being mala fide and given without properly considering the genuine need of the defendant to remain in possession of the premises in suit. A large number of pleas were raised in the written statement in support of the plea in respect of the invalidity of the permission under Section 3 of U. P. Act 3 of 1947. The usual plea that the notice of termination was invalid and ineffective was also raised without any specification or particulars as to on what grounds the notice was invalid. The allegation of the plaintiff as regards the rate of rent and the rate of profits claimed was also refuted. It may be mentioned that the tenancy was admitted.

4. It is unfortunate that the order sheet of the court of the learned Munsif of Varanasi, where the suit was instituted, shows that the court allowed a large number of adjournments, some of which appeared to be mere indulgences to the defendant, thus prolonging the pendency of the suit. The suit was registered on 21-7-1965. The written statement was filed on 25-1-1966 and issues framed on 1-2-1966. Then on two consecutive dates fixed the suit was adjourned at the instance of the defendant. The final hearing of the suit was adjourned at the instance of the defendant on ground of illness. On 12-5-1966, the adjourned date fixed for final hearing, an application No. 44-C was moved by the defendant for amendment of the written statement. By this application the defendant applied for correcting certain typographical errors, to add some more pleas in support of the main plea as to the invalidity of the permission and a plea to the effect that the tenancy from the very inception was for manufacturing pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document