LexGHANSHIAM DAS versus DEVI PRASAD & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A • B c D ' E F G •• H GHANSHIAM DAS v . DEVI PRASAD & ANOTHER March ll, 1966 [K. SUBBA RAO, V. RAMAsWAM! AND J. M. SHELAT JJ.] U.P. Zamlndarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P. Act I of 1951), s. 9-Brick kiln whether 'building' within meaning of section The respondents owned a brick kiln which they leased out to the appel- lants in 1950. They filed a suit against the appellants claiming rent for the period October 1, 1952 to September 30 1953. The appellants con- tended in defence that as a result of the operation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the Land in question stood vested in the State of U.P. with effect from July 1, 1952 and no rent was payable ID the respondents thereafter. The suit was partly decreed by the trial oourt but dismissed in toto by the first appellate court. In second appeal the High Court held that th~ brick kiln was a 'building' within the mean- ing of s. 9 of the Act and therefore the land did not vest in the State. The appellants came to this Court. HELD : In the absence of a definition in the Act itself the question as to what is a 'building' under s. 9 must always be question of degree-- a question depending on the facts ancl circumstances of each case. The brick kiln in the present case was a mere pit with some bricks by its aides. It could not be said to be a 'building' within the meaning of s. 9 of the Act and the High Court therefore went wrong in holding that the land did not vest in the State. [878 E-F, HJ R. v. Neath Canal Navigation, 40 L.J.M.C. 197, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 80 and 81 of 1964. · Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated the October 24, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals Nos. 2510 and 2511 of 1957. S. P. Sinha and M. I. Khowaja, for the appellant. J.P. Goyal, for the respondents The judgment of the court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. Thequestionoflawinvolvedin these appeals is whether the disputed brick kiln on plots nos. 596 and 597 in Mauza Sarwat, Pargana and District Muzaffarnagar and leased out to the appellant is a "building" within the meaning of s. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P. Act I of 1951). The respondents are the owners of a brick kiln located on the two plots nos. 596 and 597 in Mauza Sarwat, Pargana and District Muzaffarnagar. They leased out the brick kiln to the 875 876 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS [1966) 3 S.C.R. appellant under a registered lease deed dated December 29, 1950. A The lease was to take effect from January I, 1951 and terminate oo September 30, 1953. The rent was fixed at Rs. 41 per mensem payable annually in the month of October. The rent for tho period October l, 1952 to September 30, 1953 remained duo qainst the appellant. The respondents filed a suit (no. 1125 of 1953) in the Court of Munsif Muzaffarnagar for the rccoveryjB of Rs. 492 being arrears of rent from October l, 1952 to September 30, 1953. The suit was contested by the appellant who pleaded that after the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition aild Land Reforms Act (U.P. Act I of 1951)-hereinafter called the 'Act' -the plots of land had vested in the State of U.P. under e. 6 of tho Act with effect from July I, 1952 and the respondenta were, therefore, not entitled to claim any rent from the appellant C By his judgment dated February 12, 1955 the Additional Munsif, Muzaffarnagar held that the brick kiln did not vest in the State and uitoccupiedonly I/3rd of the total area of the land, the respon- dents were entitled to a decree for I /3rd of the rent claimed. Tho Munsif accordingly granted a decree for a sum of Rs. 164 and/( dismissed the balance of the claim of the respondentJ. Against D the judgment of the Additional Munsif both the parties filed appeals before the District Judge. Both the appeals were dis- posed of by the Civil Judge of MuzatTarnagar by a common judg. ment dated August 19, 1957. It was held by the Additional Civil Judge that the brick kiin could not be regarded as a "building'' within the meaning of s. 9 of the Act and the entire area of the .. two plots nos. 596 and 597 had vested in the State. The Additional Civil Judge accordingly allowed the appellant's appeal and dismissed the appeal of the respondents. The net result W8! that the suit of the respondents for arrears of rent was dismissed!/ as a whole. Against the judgment of the Addition
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.