The expiration of a fixed term tenancy and the failure to prove the right of construction led to the defendant's status as a tenant at sufferance, overriding the claimed immunity from eviction under Section 29-A of Act No. 13 of 1972.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This is a defendant's Second Appeal, which has been preferred, being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2021, as has been rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, 3rd, Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2017, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Shri Pankaj Gupta and others, by virtue of which, the Appeal which was preferred by the defendant/appellant, was dismissed and, as a consequence thereto, it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 2007, which was rendered by the Court of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, in Suit No. 155 of 2000, Pankaj Gupta and others Vs. I.B.P. Co. Ltd.

2. Brief facts of the case are, that the plaintiff/respondents, herein, on 4th April, 2000, had instituted a Regular Civil Suit, before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, praying for the grant of decree of eviction of the defendant/appellant and all their other agents, allies and person attached to their office, from the Suit land, which was described in the schedule of the property of the plaint. The actual possession of which was said to be delivered by the plaintiff/respondent, and which was sought to be restored back, and also with the direction that the defendant/appellant, may be directed to remove all their fittings and fixtures, which were affixed to the land from which the defendant/appellant was sought to be evicted.

3. Besides this, the another relief, which was sought for by the plaintiff/respondents, herein, in the aforesaid Suit, was for the recovery of Rs.3,000/-, as mesne profit from the date of commencement of the unauthorised occupation and of the use of the land and the damages @ Rs. 1,000/- per day for the period w.e.f. 1st April, 2000 to 3rd April, 2000, as well as for the recovery of future mesne profit for the unauthorised occupation of the land @ Rs.1000/-per day from the date of institution of the Suit, i.e. 04.04.2000 till 02.12.2004, and thereafter w.e.f. 03/12/2004, till the date of delivery of actual possession, along with the cost of Suit and interest payable on the amount due, @ 18% per annum.

3. The aforesaid amount was also claimed to be paid to the plaintiff/respondents, along with interest @ 18% p.a., as being a capital, which according to the perception of the plaintiff/appellant, was a benefit, which was accruing from their landed property, which was leased out to the defendant/appellant, herein.

4. The suit property as described in the schedule of property of the plaint of Suit 155/20, Sri Pankaj Gupta and others Vs. I.B.P. Co. Limited; constituted to be described in the plaint as under :-

"A piece of land measuring 70' in length X 110' in breadth (70' in East and West and 110' in North and South), situated at Gandhi Road, Dehradun, being part o Municipal No. 48, Gandhi Road, Dehradun, bounder and butted as under :-

On the North : By the property of late Pt. Narendra Dutt. On the South : By the property of Late S. Bhagat Singh On the East : By other land of the partly of Amit Goyal and partly of Vinay Kumar On the West : By Delhi-Mussoorie Road (Gandhi Road) Dehradun. "

5. The property, as described in the plaint as aforesaid, was numbered as Municipal Number 48, Gandhi Road, Dehradun, the precinct of the same was also detailed in the plaint itself, as given above.

6. The brief backdrop of the Suit which was filed by the plaintiff/respondent on 04.04.2000, was that, initially the plaintiff No.1, late Mr. Pankaj Gupta, had filed an Original Suit No. 119 of 1976, against the defendant/appellant, before the Civil Court, Dehradun, for ejectment and mesne profit, which was decreed by the judgment dated 30th April, 1983.

7. Being aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant to the said Suit No. 119 of 1976, i.e. appellant, herein, had preferred a Civil Appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1983. Its during the pendency of the said Appeal that the parties contend, that they had entered into