The landlords then came to this Court and were granted special leave to appeal in May 1956 and that is how appeal No.
4 became pending in this Court.
The Company thereupon instituted proceedings to recover actual possession of the land under s. 232 of the Act read with ss.
And Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 21, 1956, of the Court of the Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad, in Petition No.
Execution began in October 1950 and it is said that possession was delivered to the landlords on October 13, 1950 and a Dakhalnama was filed on October 15, 1950.
Mukhtiar Ahmed, father of the landlords, granted a theka to the Company in August 1933 companyresponding to 1341 F of the lands in dispute for a period of ten years ending with 1350 F June 1943 .
22/1954 55.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 3, 1950, of the Court of Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad, in Review Application No.
The Judgment of Sinha C. J., Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo and Shah, JJ.
4 of 1959 is by Mohd.
Thereupon there was a second appeal to the Board of Revenue which was dismissed in January, 1956.
1 in C. A. No.
4 of 1959 .
It appears, however, that the Company offered resistance to actual ejectment and this led to proceedings under s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the magistrate ordered the attachment of the land in November 1950 and appointed two superdars caretakers .
September 6.
This appeal also failed.
4 of 59 and respondents in C. A. No.
The Company applied to the Board for a certificate which was granted and that is how appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
196 of 1952.
There was an appeal by the Company against the decree.
This plea failed and the suit was decreed on November 3, 1948.
Then the Company went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue and eventually the second appeal was dismissed on July 22, 1950.
161 of 1949 50.
196 of 1952 and respondent No.
It was resisted by the Company on the ground that it was number a thekadar but a tenant and had become hereditary tenant under s. 29 of the U. P. Tenancy Act.
During all this period from November 1948 to July 1950, the Company remained in possession of the land in dispute on account of stay orders obtained from the appellate companyrts.
Achhru Ram and Naunit Lal, for the appellants in C. A. No.
Khalilul Rehman and others hereinafter called the landlords .
In March 1948, the landlords gave numberice to the Company to the effect that the theka would number be renewed after 1355 F. The Company, however did number agree to hand over possession to the landlords and companysequently a suit was filed by the landlords for ejectment of the Company under the U. P. Tenency Act, 1939.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
B. Aggarwala and C. P. Lal, for the Appellants In C. No.
The Board also decided the appeal on the basis of s. 12 and did number companysider the case as put forward under s. 20.
196 of 1952 is by the Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. hereinafter called the Company while appeal No.
was delivered by WANCHOO J. These two companynected appeals will be disposed of by one judgment.
Appeal No.
The theka companytained a clause giving option to the Company to get it renewed for five years and in companysequence the theka was renewed for five years from 1351 F to 1355 F that is upto June 1948 .
196 of 52 .
196 has companye to this Court.
In the meantime, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 U. P. I of 1951 , hereinafter called the Act came into force on July 1, 1953.
Thereafter the theka provided for option to renew the lease with the lessor.
The finding has been submitted by the Board and is to the 73 effect that the Company is entitled to the benefit of s. 20 of the Act and has acquired Adhivasi rights thereunder.
