This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against the appellant for ejectment from the property No. 179 situate in Mohalk Basdeo, Jhansi and for recovery of Rs. 900/- as damages for use and occupation. 2. The respondents case was that on 2-8-1960 the respondents granted a least in respect of a Khandhar, the property in dispute in favour of the appellant Hukum Chand for a period of 10 years subject to the condition inter alia that Hukum Chand shall vacate the property on the expiry of the above date. It was further alleged that after the expiry of 10 years the tenancy of the appellant was terminated with effect from 1-8-70 by a notice which was served upon the appellant on 9-9-70 and since in spite of service of notice the property had not been vacated, hence the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the appellant. He admitted that he entered into an agreement of lease on 2-8-1960 for a period of 10 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -. It was, however, alleged by him that on 30-10-1963 the respondents executed a sale deed in favour of his wife prema Bai and prema Bai became an absolute owner of the property on 30-10-1963. Prema Bai granted a fresh lease in his favour in respect of the property in dispute by a written document and hence it was alleged that the suit was premature and no decree for ejectment can he passed against him. 4. It is further admitted between the parties that on 25-11-1968 Smt. Prema Bai executed a sale deed which was in the nature of reconveyance in favour of the respondents again transferring back the property absolutely in favour of the respondents. 5. The trial court framed a number of issues. Three main issues framed by the trial court were as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to set the property vacated, whether the notice for ejectment was valid and whether the plaintiffs had the right to file the suit. The trial court after examining the evidence on record recorded a finding that the plaintiffs-respondents were entitled to evict the appellant from the property in dispute. The notice served by the respondents on the appellant was valid and that the

plaintiffs-respondents had a right to file the suit. In view of the above finding the suit was decreed for the eviction of the appellant as well as for damages. Aggrieved by the said decision of the trial court dated 30th Sept. 1972, an appeal was filed before the lower appellate court. In appeal the appellate court considered mainly two points; firstly, on the question whether the suit has been prematurely instituted and secondly on the question as to whether the tenancy in question has assumed the complexion of a permanent tenancy on account of erection of some construction on the disputed property by the defendant-appellant during the period of tenancy and the third question of course was as to whether the plaintiffs-respondents were entitled to any relief or not. The appellate court after examining the evidence on record recorded a categorical finding that an outright sale was effected on 30-10-1963 in favour of Smt. prema Bai by virtue of the sale deed which is Ext. 2 on the record. The contention raised by the respondents that the deed was a mortgage by conditional sale was not accepted. The appellate court further recorded a finding that Smt. Prema Bai had in fact, agreed to reconvey the property to the plaintiffs-respondents on the expiry of the period of five years, i. e. by 30th Oct. 1968 but the said agreement for reconveyance was not incorporated in the deed Ext. 2. It has been further found that on 25th Nov. 1968 the property was in fact. Re-conveyed to the plaintiffs- respondents. The appellate court further recorded a finding that the plaintiffs-respondents were not bound by the lease deed dated 23-11-1968 Ext. A-1 by virtue of which Smt. Prema Bai had executed the lease in favour of her husband the appellant, for a period of 10 years. Having recorded this finding the appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document