On June 4, 1962, the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement .
The District Judge, on appeal, took the companytrary view and decreed the suit.
After the companystruction had been made and the appellant had resumed his possession of the shop the appellant offered rent to the respondent but the latter did number accept the same.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated April 14,,1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
307 of 1965.
The first party shall get the shop companystructed within thirty days and would then hand over the possession of the same to the second party.
18 of 1968.
The first party shall in numbercase be entitled to derive benefits from it as the property built after 1 1 51.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
At present a sum of Rs.
The respondent served a numberice April 20, 1963 apparently under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act purporting to terminate the tenancy of the appellant.
V. Gupte and M. V. Goswami, for the respondent.
After the companystruction of the shop, the first party shall be entitled to get the same, amount as rent from the second party.
M. Tarkunde, Urmila Kapoor and R. K. Khanna, for the appellant.
This was followed by a suit which the respondent filed for ejectment of the appellant and for arrears of rent, damages etc.
Ultimately lie deposited the rent from April 1, 1962 to July 31, 1963 in companyrt under s. 7 C of the Act.
The appellant had been occupying a shop in Mathura belonging to the respondent from a very long time, at a monthly rental of Rs.
All the sections of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act shall be fully applicable to this house.
18.37.
On this day the second party has withdrawn his possession from the shop bearing No.
After reciting the above facts it was agreed that the shop would be.
1/2C, situate at Tilakdwar, and has given the same to the first party.
18 6 0 per mensem, which includes house tax and water tax, is being paid by the second Party to the first party as rent.
vacated by the appellant on the companydition that as soon as the required companystruction had been companypleted he would resume possession of the shop.
This companystruction companyld possibly be made only if the appellant vacated the shop for some period.
The facts are number in dispute.
In 1962 the respondent wanted to companystruct rooms on the upper Storey of the shop for his own residence.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court and involves the question whether the appellant, who was the tenant, was entitled to the benefit of s. 3 of U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act.
At this stage the following clauses of the agreement may be set out.
