The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.
They also pleaded that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants.
The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court had found, after an 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 up by him.
100 under protest.
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 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.
10/ per month from 1.4.1953 to 30.1.1954.
On the plaintiffs refusal to pay, the house was attached on 23rd February, 1955.
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.
He then filed his suit, on 26.10.1956, 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.
100/ .
They set up a claim to damages for use and occupation in the form of rent from the plaintiff at Rs.
The defendants, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Municipal Board of Rampur, and the Public Works Department at Rampur, denied the alleged gift of either the ownership or of a life interest in the house to the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs case was that the Government of Rampur had given him a house under the orders of His Highness the Nawab of Rampur, passed on 23rd June, 1945.
H. 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.
