on an appeal filed by ida the subtenant the aforesaid decree was set aside by the additional companymissioner on 18th april 1962 and the suit of hari shanker was dismissed.
the said suit was companytested by habib but a decree was passed in favour of hari shanker in that suit on 18th numberember 1961.
394 and 418 of 1970 were filed in the said high companyrt against the said judgment of the learned single judge.
it is against this judgment that the present appeals are directed.
habib also filed an application dated 16th august 1964 against ida as companytemplated under section 171 to the proviso of the said act.
writ petitions number.
613 of 1970 and 910 of 1971 a were filed by habib and ida respectively against the orders passed by the revenue authorities in execution.
ida challenged the aforesaid decision of the board of revenue by way of civil miscellaneous writ number 2386 of 1964.
394 and 418 of 1970 and writ petition number.
from the judgment and order dated 13.3.1973 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number.
hari shanker filed a second appeal which was allowed by the board of revenue by its judgment dated 13th march 1963/17th april 1964 and the decree of the additional companymissioner was set aside and that of the trial companyrt was restored.
according to habib the said application has number so far been decided on merits.
that writ petition was dismissed on 26th march 1970 by a learned single judge of the allahabad high companyrt and special appeals number.
under the decree habib was given an option to apply for the ejectment of ida within one month and resume occupation of land in dispute in terms of the proviso to section 171.
613 and 910 of 1971.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
after his suit was decreed by the board of revenue hari shanker filed an application for execution of the decree in which an objection was filed by the sub tenant ida which was dismissed by the revenue authorities but we are informed the said application itself has number been finally disposed of.
they set aside the order of the board of revenue decreeing the suit of hari shanker for ejectment of habib ida under section 171 of the said act and dismissed the said suit.
z37 to 239 of 1974.
k. gupta for the respondent.
on 1st february 1961 hari shanker filed a suit as companytemplated under section 171 of the said act against one habib ahmad who was his tenant in respect of the land in suit on the ground that in 1943 habib had sub let the suit land to his sub tenant ida and the said sub lease was for more than five years and hence illegal and in contravention of section 40 of the said act.
upadhyaya for the petitioners.
40 of the said act and ida is his sub tenant in respect of the said land within the meaning of the said term in the said act.
the facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows hari shanker the appellant before us is a land holder within the meaning of said expression in the united provinces tenancy act 1939 referred to hereinafter as the said act .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kania j. these appeals are directed against the judgment of a special bench companyprising two learned judges of the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad in special appeal number 394 of 1970 along with special appeal number 418 of 1970 writ petition number 613 of 1971 and writ petition number 9 l0 of 1971.
r. agarwal manumber saxena and r.d.
