10/ per month from 1 4 1953 to 30 1 1954.
He then filed his suit, on 26 10 56, for a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the house, and, in the alternative, that he is a licensee entitled to remain in possession of the house for life without payment of rent The defendants, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Municipal Board of Rampur, and the Public Work.
Department at Rampur, denied the alleged gift of either the ownership or of a life interest in the house to the plaintiff.
up by him.
Ap aj hi us me muntaquil ho jayen Ap un se mil kar inteqal niaka.1 ki karrawai kariye.
Ap ki sakunat ke waste Abdul Karim Sabib wala makan atta farmaya gaya hai.
They also pleaded that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 15, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
The Trial companyrt as well as the first Appellate Court bad found, after ,in examination of all the evidence, including the alleged order dated 23rd June 1945, of His Highness the Nawab of Rampur Exhibit 1 , a letter dated 30th June 1949 ,Exhibit A 10 from a Minister of Rampur State to the Secretary Buildings , fixing rent for the house and the oral evidence that the plaintiff had number proved either of the two alternative claims set.
100/ .
According to them, the plaintiffs licence, if any, automatically terminated when the State of Rampur merged with the State of Uttar Pradesh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Their case was that, if any permission to reside in the house was given to the plaintiff by the ruler of the State of Rampur before the merger of Rampur with Uttar Pradesh, it was valid and effective only so long as the plaintiff was in the service of the former ruler of Rampur.
The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.
100 under protest.
222 of 1960.
The defendants had also pleaded that the alleged gift, which was number governed by Mahomedan law, companyld number be upheld because numberregistered deed of gift was executed to transfer a house the value of which was far in excess of Rs.
On the plaintiffs refusal to pay, the house was attached on 23rd February, 1955.
N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the appellants.
C. Agrawala, for respondents Nos.
They set up a claim to damages for use and occupation in the form of rent from the plaintiff at Rs.
279 of 1967.
It appears that, after the merger of Rampur State in Uttar Pradesh in 1949, when Rampur became a district of Uttar Pradesh, this house was given by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Municipal Board of Rampur, Defendant Appellant, which demanded rent from the plaintiff by numberice.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Beg, J. There are two appeals by Special Leave before us, Leave, against the Judgment and decree of a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing a plaintiffs second appeal The plaintiffs case was that the Government of Rampur had given him a house under the orders of His Highness the Nawab of Ramur, passed on 23rd June, 1945.
1, 2, 4 and 5.
