The Government Grants Act supersedes the U.P. Tenancy Act, confirming plaintiffs' occupancy rights and allowing for ejectment of defendants as sub-tenants.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. In present case, original respondent 3 has filed 5 suits bearing Suit Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of 1954 under Section 175 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Suits were directed against different defendants and in regard to different plots. According to plaintiffs, they were sir-holders of plots whereas defendants were their sub-tenants and they were liable for ejectment.

2. Later on, on 29.9.1956, plaintiffs applied for amendment of pleadings, which was allowed that they were occupancy tenants of land in dispute since it was given to their ancestors as a grant. The defendants of all suits contested that they are not sub-tenants of plaintiffs and have acquired hereditary rights and suits are barred by limitation. They have challenged the plaintiff's title also. In the suit, following 6 issues were framed:

“1. Whether defendants is a subtenant of the plaintiff liable to ejectment under Section 175 U.P. Tenancy Act?

2. Whether plaintiff occupancy tenants of the land in suit?

3. Whether the suit is within time?

4. Whether the land in suit is demarcable?

5. Whether Itwari is a necessary party?

6. Should these suits be stayed under Provisions of Section 10 of U.P. Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privilages Act?”

3. Trial Court vide order dated 30.9.1958, dismissed the Suit No. 18 and 21. Suit Nos. 19 and 20 were decreed in part and Suit No. 22 was decreed in its entirety.

4. Trial Court held that plaintiffs were occupancy tenants of all lands involved in five suits. In Plot Nos. 12, 18, 20, 32, 16 and 26 defendants were held as “bila tasnia.” Relevant finding in regard to issue No. 1 is quoted below:

“In suit No. 18 plaintiff have sued Ratiram Punni for ejectment from plot No. 20. In 1352F and 1359F Khatauni Ratiram is shown as holding this land bila tasnia is commencing from 1352 F. plaintiff Ujagar Singh stated that Pumi was admitted to this land but Punni name as holding it never appeared in the Khatauni Ratiram has entered the witnesses box and denied this fact. hence I am unable to believe that Ratiram was over admitted as subtenant of plot No. 201 Therefore in respect of Plot No. 20 I hold that Rati Ram is not a subtenant. Issue No. 2 in respect of suit No. 18 is answered in the negative.

In the suit No. 19 plaintiffs have sued Moti, Mauji, Chotey and Itwari in respect of plots 4, 31 ani 32. Out of these plots 4, 31 and 32 are recorded as subtenants at Rs. 46/- rent in 1359 F with 17 years and 12 years duration respectively. Užagar Singh and his witnesses have said that these persons were admitted as subtenants. None of the defendants have entered the witness box to rebut that statement. Hense the oral evidence of plaintiffs coupled with entries in Khatauni proves that defendants are subtenants of plaintiffs in respects of plot 4 and 31. In respect of plot No. 32 defendants are recorded as bila tasfia tenants. Therefore I hold that defendants are not subtenants of plot No. 32. Issue No. 1 in respect of Suit No. 19, in respect of plots 4 and 31 is answered in the affirmative, while in respect of lot No. 32 it is answered in the negative.

In suit No. 20 plaintiffs have sued Lachman and Dharamjit and Neku in respect of plots No. 7,9,25,20,10,16, and 26. In Khatauni of 1350 F and 1359 F defendants are recorded as subtenants at Rs. 50/- rent in respect of plots 7,9,25,29 and 10 while in respect of plots 16 and 26 they are recorded as bila tasfia tenants from 1352 F. None of these defendants have entered the witness box to rebut the plaintiffs evidence about contract of subtenancy. Therefore, I hold that defendants are subtenants of plot No. 7, 9, 10,25 and 26 atleast. Because the plots 16 and 26 are entered as bila tasfia am unusual to believe that these plots were let out to defendants consequently. Issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative in respect of plots No. 7,9, and 10,25 and 29 and in the negative in respect of plot 16 and 26.

In suit No. 21 Umrao defendant has been suit for ejectment from plots 12