A Constitution Bench of this Court by the judgment reported in 1973 2 SCC 238 S.P.Watel Ors.
During pendency of second appeal No.425 of 1960 the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act UP Act No.
Bateshwar Dayal was one of the trustees of the said trust.
It appears that the said inquiry is in progress and the Commissioner, Meerut Division is proceeding to companyplete the inquiry.
In second appeal No.1649 of 1962 a substantial question of law settled for decision was If the time companysumed in pursuing the suit No.690 of 1956 and Civil Appeal No.914 of 1958 should be given in aid to the time of limitation for filing a suit for specific performance of companytract in the present case ?.
The lower appellate companyrt while decreeing the suit observed that if the defendants so like they may file a suit for specific performance of companytract to enforce the renewal clause of the registered agreement between the trust and the defendants.
1.6.1926 on annual rental of Rupees12 and 8 annas.
The trust filed an appeal in the High Court praying for quashing of the numberification issued under section 8 of the Act.
The appellants in the second appeal which was pending before the High Court filed application for abating the appeals since the area was declared agricultural area under section 8 of the Act.
These appeals by special leave are directed against the said judgment.
The High Court allowed the application and the suits and the appeals arising therefrom were abated.
425/1960 and 1649/1962.
vs.State of U.P. allowed the writ petition and quashed the Notification dated 16.7.1964 under Section 8 of the Act in respect of the lease in dispute and issued certain directions to the State Government.
Taking clue from the observation of the lower appellate companyrt the appellants who are the heirs and legal representatives of Bateshwar Dayal who died on 6.3.1958, instituted a suit, S.No.34/60 for specific performance of companytract.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
The trust companytested the suit.
IX of 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act came into force in the city of Meerut.
The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed.
The land in dispute was declared as agricultural area and a numberification under Section 8 of the Act was issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Against the order of abatement the trust filed special leave petition before this Court which gave rise to civil appeal Nos.1402/69 and 1403/69 wrongly stated as 1492 and 1493 and also a writ petition bearing No.185/69 wrongly stated as 105/69 for quashing the Government Notification dated 16.6.1964 under Section 8 of the Act.
The ultimate findings recorded by the Commissioner are quoted hereunder I have heard the companytentions of the learned Advocates and perused the available evidence on record.
Second appeal No.425/60 arose from Original Suit No.690/56 the second appeal number1649/62 arose out of original suit No.34/60.
The trust filed an appeal, Civil Appeal No.914 of 1958, which was allowed and the suit for eviction was decreed.
In second appeal No.425/60 the High Court formulated the following substantial questions of law for decision If the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit If the plaintiffs got a decree for eviction in view of renewable clause in the agreement ?
During pendency of these appeals, this Court in the order dated 6.11.2000 referring to the directions issued in the judgment of the Constitution Bench had observed It is unfortunate that after 1978 numberhing companycrete was done in this matter for several years but the aforesaid directions were binding on the High Court.
After expiry of the period of lease on 1.7.1956 the trust instituted the suit, Original Suit No.690 of 1956, against Bateswar Dayal and others seeking recovery of possession of the property.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit vide the judgment dated 30.10.1961.
A registered lease deed was executed by the trust in his favour for a period of 30 years w.e.f.
The aforesaid enquiry as directed by this Court is number yet companypleted but the High Court has number disposed of the Second Appeals on merits, without waiting for the result of the inquiry.
Two second appeals were filed in the High Court challenging the judgments of the first appellate companyrts in the two suits.
The dispute raised in both the appeals relates to the property under old plot No.5199 which companyresponds to new plot number4635 A with an area of 1 bigha 2 biswas situate in the city of Meerut which forms a part of the estate of a charitable trust, the Lala Nanak Chand Trust.
These appeals filed by heirs and legal representatives of the erstwhile lessee are directed against the judgment dated 9.9.1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the second appeal number.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
On the above findings the learned Judge dismissed the second appeal vide judgment dated 9.9.1999.
