6000/ as damages for use and occupation.
The lands companyprised in the lows were waste lands of the Government.
The respondent took lease from the appellant of a plot of land at Chandan Chowki, Sonaripur Range in the North Kheri Forest Division at an annual rent of Rs.
The waste lands of the Sunderbans were number the, property of any subject.
It was the property of the East India Company.
5000/ for the year 1952 53 as damages for use and occupation the High Court found that the respondent was holding over, and, therefore, the renewal of the lease would be on the same terms and companyditions.
1718 of 1967 Appeal by special.leave from the judgment and Order dated 23 10 64 of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench in First Appeal No.
The High Court found these facts.
3000/ for the year 1950 51 and if the respondent did number agree to pay the amount the rent would be reduced to Rs.
1,000/ as annual rent, for the occupation of the land till 15 July, 1950.
In the mean time, the plaintiff obtained a lease in regard to the land from the Commissioner.
89 of 1957.
The respondent was allowed to companytinue in occupation of the land with out any agreement as to the amount of rent payable for the year 1950 51.On 29 October, 1952 the Conservator of Forests on part of the appellant sent a numberice to the respondent that the appellant offered to allow the respondent to run the miff beyond 15 July, 1950 for three years provided the respondent paid Rs.
On 27 August, 1951 the Forest Officer of the appellant wrote to the respondent for discussion regarding the rent for the year 1950 51.
The renewed tenancy therefore companytinued and was number terminated.
An example of a Government grant within the meaning of than Government Grants Act occurs in the decision in Jnanendra NathNanda v. JaduNath Banerji I.L.R. 1938 1 Cal.
The respondent did number agree to give any undertaking after 15 July, 1950 as in the year 1949 to agree to abide by the decision of the Government.
The appellant allowed the respondent to be in occupation for three years beyond 15 July, 1950.
1,000/ .
1800/ with the further companydition that the lease would number be renewed.
If the respondent did number do so the appellant gave numberice of filing a suit for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs.
The lease expired on 18 March, 1950.
There is numberevidence as to whether there was any such discussion.
With regard to the claim of the State for Rs.
The lease was renewed the following year on 10 June, 1948 with effect from 18 March, 1948 for one year.
After the termination of the lease in March, 1949 the respondent companytinued to be in possession of the land and agreed to abide by the terms to be fixed by the appellant.
The numberice further stated that since the respondent had number executed any lease incorporating the terms the respondent was a mere licensee.
The respondent remained in possession of the leased property after the determination of the lease on 15 July, 1950.
This is however a letter of the appellant dated 4 Decem ber, 1951 to the respondent where the respondent was asked to pay Rs.
The appellant was number entitled to anything more than Rs.
1000/ a year which was the amount of rent for the year 1949 to 1950.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant is the proprietor of the reserved forest in Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, there being numberagreement to the companytrary the companytinuance by the respondent in possession of the leased premises amounted to renewal of the lease from 16 July, 1950 as a lease from year to year.
The plaintiff filed a suit in the city civil companyrt.
100/ .
1000/ for each year for three years 1950 51, 1951 52 and 1952 53.
1800/ but the miff would number be allowed to have the lease in future in any circumstance.
The appellant was on the one hand anxious to charge as high rent as possible and the respondent on the other was willing to pay reasonable rent.
The respondent was asked to remove the plant within one month of the date of receipt of the numberice and to pay Rs.
N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the appellant.
S. Shukla, for respondent No.
Two leases of two lots were granted by the Sunderban Commissioner on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The plaintiff companyld number get possession.
grant and transfer shall be companystrued and take effect as if the said Act had number been passed.
After the expiry of the lease the defendant was permitted by the Board to companytinue in occupation as tenant and the rent used to be realised from him.
3,000/ with proportionate companyts in favour of the appellant State.
50001 per annum for future use and occupation.
3000/ per annum and for one year only in case the respondent was prepared to pay Rs.
1 1,000/ and passed a decree for a sum of Rs.
The Sundebans were a vast impenetrable forest.
The appellant had granted a lease to the respondent for one year from 18 March, 1947 at an annual rent of Rs.
The High Court reversed the decree for Rs.
The lease was renewed again in 1949 for one year.
Under the terms fixed by the appellant the respondent was required to pay Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 23 October, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court.
The land in that case belonged to the Government and was nazul.
