Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rajeev Misra and Prakash Padia for the appellants and Sri R.P. Tiwari for the respondents in both the appeals.

2. Both these appeals have arisen from common proceedings and the orders passed by the Court below arising out of Original Suit No. 162 of 1996 and, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, have been heard together.

3. The following substantial questions of law initially were formulated by this Court:

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court being barred by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ?

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A (3) read with Section 20 whereby the suit for eviction was barred except on the grounds mentioned therein?

3. Whether the Courts below are justified in law in not considering the claim of appellants under Section 29-A (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 despite the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 391 of 2010 dated 15.1.2010?

4. Whether the Courts below are justified in law in holding that the argument that suit is barred by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is without force as the Hon’ble High Court has held that suit is maintainable in Civil Court, without appreciating that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 361 of 2010 filed against the said order of Hon’ble High Court directed the appellants to claim benefit under Section 29-A (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972?”

4. However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that substantial questions of law formulated, need be recast, to which, learned counsel for the parties also agreed and hence, the questions which would be considered by this Court are reformulated as under:

(i) Whether the land in question is covered by Section 29-A(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ?

(ii) Whether a suit for ejectment in respect of land, covered by Section 29-A(2) of Act No. 13 of 1972 is maintainable, even if no ground, as set out in sub-section (2) of Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is available or exists ?

(iii) Whether a suit for eviction in respect of a land governed by Section 29-A(2) is permissible outside Section 20 of Act 1972 ?

(iv) Whether the plaint in question does not show any cause of action to satisfy requirement of Section 20(2) of Act 1972, and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and the plaint itself was liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.?

(v) Whether a suit for ejectment under Section 29-A(3) read with Section 20 is maintainable before a Civil Court ?

5. The facts giving rise to the present dispute and useful to scrutinise the dispute in brief are as under:

6. Smt. Ramawati Devi wife of Sri Vishwanath Pandey executed a lease deed dated 18.9.1957 with M/s. Burmah Shell, in respect of land, having an area 151' x 136' x 147' x 131', situate by the side of Varanasi-Mirzapur road at Mirzapur, for a period of twenty years, with option for renewal for a further period of twenty years, on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The covenants of deed permitted the lessee to use the premises as a depot for storage and sale of petroleum products, motor accessories and for the said purpose, to establish, service station/filling station etc., with full liberty to make excavation, construction, erection etc.

7. The aforesaid lease expired in 1977, but was extended/renewed upto 31.10.1996. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid deed, lessee constructed a retail petrol depot/filling station and made construction of building etc. for the said purpose. Since the lease was going to expire on 31.10.1996, the plaintiff sent notices dated 15.1.1996, 17.1.1996 and 13/14.6.1996 stipulating that he is not inclined to extend period of lease further and the lessee should vacate the premises and had over possession on or before 1.11.1996, after removing structure raised thereupon. Subsequently, a suit for ejectment of defendants from the premises in q