JUDGEMENT – This second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 04-12-2001, passed in Civil Appeal No. 370 of 1984 by Additional District Judge / I Fast Track Court, Dehradun, whereby the said appeal is dismissed confirming the decree passed by trial court in original suit No. 203 of"1980. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff / respondent Is owner and landlord of the land in suit in which the defendant / appellant was tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. The defendant / appellant failed to pay rent w.e.f. 01-09-1978. It Is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant has let out a portion of the land In suit to one Roshan Lal and another to one Bishamber Dayal, without consent of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff served a notice dated 18-09-1978 on 21-09-1978 determining his tenancy on expiry of thirty days of the notice, of the defendant who failed to deliver possession of the land of the plaintiff. With these facts original suit No. 203 of 1980 was instituted for ejectment of defendant and for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne-profits. The defendant, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation contested the suit and filed its written" statement wherein tenancy was admitted. It was also admitted that the rent was paid up to July 1978. It was also admitted by the Corporation that the notice sent "by plaintiff was received by it. However, rest of the pleas in the plaint were denied stating that land in question was taken on rent also for construction required for Bus stand. It was further pleaded that booking office, canteen, passengers shed etc. were constructed more than twelve years before the Institution of suit by the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that since August 1978, plaintiff refused to accept the rent. It was denied that there was any sub letting to Roshan Lal or Bishamber Dayal. However, it is stated that they were given licenses to run canteen and Book stall. Lastly, it was pleaded in the written statement that provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable -to the property In suit and the tenancy of the defendant Is protected under Section 29-A of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 3. However, it is stated that they were given licenses to run canteen and Book stall. Lastly, it was pleaded in the written statement that provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable -to the property In suit and the tenancy of the defendant Is protected under Section 29-A of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 3. Learned trial court framed following Issues in the suit: 1. Whether, - there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 2. Whether, the defendant raised construction without the consent of the plaintiff, if so, its effect ? 3. Whether, defendant has sub let the property in question as alleged in para 4 of the plaint, if so, its effect ? 4. Whether, provisions of Act XIII of 1972 are applicable to the property in question? 5. Whether, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A of the V.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 ? 6.Relief? 4.Learned trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff, except issue No. 3 and decreed the suit on ji-03-1984 for ejectment of defendant and 'for recovery of arrears of rent and' mesne profits. As to issue, No.3, the trial court held that property in suit was not sub let by the 'defendant but only licenses were granted to the contractors to run canteen etc. Aggrieved by the judgment, defendant preferred civil appeal No. 370 of 1984 before the District Judge, Dehradun, which was transferred to the court of Additional District Judge/I Fast Track Court, Dehradun, and after hearing the part,les .the same was dismissed on 04-12-2001. Hence, this second appeal. 5.Following substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal : 1.Whether, the courts below have rightly held that the tenancy of the appellant is not protected under Section 29(A)(2) of the V.P. Act XIII of 1972, despite the admission on the part of plaintiff that Pucca construction was raised ten years before suit and no objection was raised against the raising of constructions ? 2.Whether, the courts below have rightly held that suit was maintainable irrespective of the fact that the provisions of Act No. 'XIII of 1972'were applicable to the properties and the tenancy was protected under Section 29-A of said Act ? 6. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2.Whether, the courts below have rightly held that suit was maintainable irrespective of the fact that the provisions of Act No. 'XIII of 1972'were applicable to the properties and the tenancy was protected under Section 29-A of said Act ? 6. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Answer to substantial question!! of law NO.1 & 2 : 7. Admittedly, the plaintiff/respondent is owner and landlord of the land In suit, who let out the land to defendant / appellant, on rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month, prior to commencement of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [U.P. Act. No. 13 of 1972]. It is also not disputed, that the appellant, a State Road Transport Corporation is using this land in Rishikesh as ,Bus stand. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was instituted after serving notice dated 18-09-1,978 (copy Ext. 2 in trial court's ,record) under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The 'question before this Court is, whether, provisions of the U,P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the land in question or not. If the same are applicable, suit could ,not have been maintained for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the' defendant '/ appellant, instead remedy should have been availabled by the landlord under the said Act (I.e. the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). Relevant Provisions of Section 29-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, are being reproduced hereunder: "29-A. Protection against eviction to certain classes of tenants of landon which building exists. ,i (1) For the purposes of this section, the expressions 'tenant' and 'landlord' shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses '(a) and (j) of Section 3 with the substitution of the word 'land' for the word 'buildings: (2) This section applies only to land let out, either before or after the commencement of this section, where the tenant. with the landlord's consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in !it execution thereof. (3) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this section, the provisions of section 20 shall apply in relation to any land referred to in sub section (2) as they apply in relation to any building. with the landlord's consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in !it execution thereof. (3) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this section, the provisions of section 20 shall apply in relation to any land referred to in sub section (2) as they apply in relation to any building. (4) The tenant of any land to which this section applies shall be liable to pay to the landlord such rent as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties, and in the absence of agreement, the rent determined in accordance with sub section (5). (5) The District Magistrate shall on the application of the landlord or the tenant determine the annual rent payable in respect of such land at the rate of ten per cent of prevailing market value of the land, and such rent shall be payable, except as provided in sub section (6) from the date of expiration of the term for which the land was let or from the commencement of this section, whichever is later. (7) The provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any contract or instrument or any other law for time being in force. Explanation : " 8. The aforesaid section was incorporated in the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976. Learned trial court has held that aforesaid section 29-A is not applicable to the land in question on the ground that the constructions raised over it by the defendant / appellant were not raised with the consent of the landlord. The same finding has been given by the lower appellate court. Now, in the present case, it is also required to be examined if the findings are perverse or against the evidence on record. From the pleadings of the parties, it is very clear that, admittedly the land was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant for using it as Bus stand. It is also not disputed that the defendant constructed over it passsengers shed, toilets. canteen and Booking office etc. The statement of P.W.1, Mahant Ashok Prapan Sharma (plaintiff) shows that in the examination in chief he has stated that the defendant has raised constructions without his consent. However, in cross-examination he has stated that terms of lease were settled with General Manager of the U.P. Roadways. canteen and Booking office etc. The statement of P.W.1, Mahant Ashok Prapan Sharma (plaintiff) shows that in the examination in chief he has stated that the defendant has raised constructions without his consent. However, in cross-examination he has stated that terms of lease were settled with General Manager of the U.P. Roadways. But no copy of settlement of terms was filed by either of the parties. From the record. it is also clear that land was given on lease to the defendant in 1962. It is also admitted by the P.W.l. Ashok Prapan Sharma that Booking office, canteen etc. were constructed ten years before (he made this statement on 06-05-1982). It is further stated by him that he did not raise any objection against raising of these constructions. As such this statement itself shows that if not express the plaintiff has definitely given implied consent to the defendant to raise the constructions (buildings) and did not object to it. Learned trial court and lower appellate court have erred in law, by holding that the buildings are constructed without consent of the landlord. From the plaint itself it reflects that the plaintiff has full knowledge of the constructions being raised by the defendant as it has been pleaded that property $ in suit has been let out to one Roshan Lal and one Bishambar Dayal without his consent regarding which the trial court found that the contractors / licensees were running the canteen and Book stall and lower appellate court also did not disturb that finding. For the purposes of applicability of provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the 'consent' required under Section 29-A(2), need not necessarily be express. It can be implied also. Had it been a case that where plaintiff instituted suit within reasonable time of raising the constructions, it could have been said that there was not implied consent. But the plaintiff has preferred to keep quite for 10l]g time and without disclosing the date in the plaint as to when the constructions were raised by the defendant, filed the suit. Nay, not only this, even it is not mentioned in the plaint when the plaintiff came to know of constructions / buildings in question being raised. But the plaintiff has preferred to keep quite for 10l]g time and without disclosing the date in the plaint as to when the constructions were raised by the defendant, filed the suit. Nay, not only this, even it is not mentioned in the plaint when the plaintiff came to know of constructions / buildings in question being raised. In the circumstances, from the evidence on record, it is clear that both the courts below have turned blind eye to these glaring facts and given the perverse finding that constructions were raised by the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff. In an open place like Bus Stand the disputed constructions cannot be said to be made in clandestine manner particularly, when the plaintiff himself is resident of same city Rishikesh (as Is clear from his address In the plaint. That being so, it is a clear case of implied consent given by the plaintiff / landlord to the defendant to raise constructions / buildings over the land let out for Bus Stand and In view of sub section (2) of Section 29-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, provisions of said Act [U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972] are applicable to the land in question. And, suit for ejectment of defendant, by merely serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not maintainable. 9. Sri V.K. Bist, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the respondent (plaintiff) argued that the constructions in question cannot be said to be 'permanent'. In this connection he drew my attention to the principle of law contained in Smt. Riazi Begum Vs. Adarsh Kumar Jauhari reported in 1985 (2) ARC 89. The said case law refers to the pending suits on the date Section 29-A of aforesaid Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force. For the purposes of present case on this point, what is relevant Is the statement of P. W.1, Sri Ashok Prapan Sharma (plaintiff) himself who, in his cross examination states No doubt whether a construction is permanent or not depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. If a tin shed toilet floor booking office, passenger shed or wall is constructed for Kumbh Mela period or for use of temporary period even pucca construction which can be removed can be said to be temporary structure. If a tin shed toilet floor booking office, passenger shed or wall is constructed for Kumbh Mela period or for use of temporary period even pucca construction which can be removed can be said to be temporary structure. But in the present case for years said constructions are standing and there is nothing to show that defendant raised these constructions for use of temporary period therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the constructions are 'permanent' and both the courts below have erred in law by holding otherwise. 10. For the reasons as discussed above both the substantive questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant. 11. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed, with the observation that the plaintiff/respondent may seek his remedy available under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, including enhancement of rent under sub section 21 (8) or 29-A(S) of the said Act and other remedies available to him. The impugned judgments and decree passed, by the courts below are set aside. Costs easy.