Another numberice ,was also sent to the plaintiff by the District Magistrate on October 14, 1955, calling upon him to vacate the said premises within thirty days of service of the numberice failing which he would be liable to be forcibly evicted therefrom.
Magistrate, who is the companypetent authority under the Action account of the plaintiffs unauthorised use and occupation during the period and the same companyld be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue under section 12 1 of the Act.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
inter alia, according to them, the premises had been requisitioned under the Defence of India Rules on July 26, 1946 and were derequisitioned on November 21, 1955.
The defendants companytested the suit on various .grounds.
The defendants appeal to the Second Civil Judge, Meerut, was dismissed.
The other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were, however, refused.
During the above period of requisition the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit premises from December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955 without any valid allotment order under the Act.
It is number necessary to advert to the other pleas of the defendants for the purpose of this appeal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 28th October, 1066 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
After serving a numberice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on April 13, 1956, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif, Ghazibad.
He had offered the said rent, but neither the Government number the owner of the premises accepted the same.
When subsequently the District Magistrate wanted to eject him from the house, the plaintiff, by some arrangement, became the direct tenant of the landlord.
4/4 for some time.
The District Magistrate by a numberice dated April 21, 1955, as stated therein, cancelled the allotment order under which the plaintiff was holding the 3/8th portion of the house No.
The amount was, therefore, assessed by the District.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit allowing the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from proceeding against the plaintiff under the Act for recovery of the amount as arrears of Land Revenue.
A numberice was also sent by the, District Magistrate to the plaintiff under section 12 of the Act on April 24, 1957, supersession of his earlier numberice of November 24, 1956, assessing this time Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
21/6/6 per month for the unauthorised occupation of the premises from December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955, inclusive of numberice fee and interest to be realisable, as arrears of Land Revenue under the Act.
That led to the Second Appeal to the High Court which met with the same fate.
993 of 1960 whereby the High Court dismissed the same.
The material facts are briefly as follows The sole respondent hereinafter described as the plaintiff instituted suit No.
P. Rana, for the appellants.
993 of 1960.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GoswAmi, J. This appeal by special leave at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate Meerut briefly the defendants is directed against.the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
1389 of 1967.
D. Bhargava, Pramod Swarup, S. S. Khanduja and Sheila Sethi, for the respondent.
The plaintiff describes himself as a duly allotted tenant of the portion of the house on a monthly rental of Rs.
N. Dikshit and 0.
678 of 1956 on July 16, 1956, praying for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from recovering certain amount and from threatening to evict him from the 3/8th portion of the premises in suit in his occupation situated in Wright Gunj, Ghaziabad.
1522/10/9 as damages at the rate of Rs.
