JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. In these appeals I tried to persuade the parties through their learned counsel to settle the dispute amicably and for that purpose a particular suggestion had also been given by me under Section 89 C.P.C. however, learned counsel for the respondent stated that his client had expressed his regrets that he was not in a position to agree to the suggestion of compromise given by the Court. Accordingly, arguments of learned counsel for both the parties were heard. 2. Appellant is tenant and respondent is landlord. Landlord-respondent initiated two suits against the tenant. One was Original Suit No. 288 of 1986 which was for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from making any construction in the tenanted property in dispute and for mandatory injunction for demolition of the construction made by the tenant. The second suit being Original Suit No. 364 of 1987 was for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted accommodation. Both the suits were consolidated and decreed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras through judgment and decree dated 26.8.2008. Against the said decree tenant-appellant filed two appeals being Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2008. Both the appeals were dismissed by District Judge, Hathras through judgment and decree dated 24.2.2010 hence these Second Appeals. 3. Judgment of the trial Court is in 22 pages however, judgment of the lower appellate Court is in 78 pages. This much time and energy would have been sufficient to decide five or six more cases. I am sitting in Second Appeal jurisdiction for about eight months and I have found that in most of the cases learned Judges of the Courts below are writing un-necessarily lengthy judgments containing too much repetition. This is also one of the causes for delay in disposal. The Judges of the Courts below are required to be taught the necessity and beauty of brevity in writing the judgments at the entry point as well as afterwards through refresher courses. 4. The main dispute between the parties is regarding the nature of the property which was let out; whether it was open land (pre-dominantly open land) or constructed building (pre-dominantly constructed building). 5. The property in dispute is quite large in area having dimension of 68x78 meter (5304 sq. meter). 4. The main dispute between the parties is regarding the nature of the property which was let out; whether it was open land (pre-dominantly open land) or constructed building (pre-dominantly constructed building). 5. The property in dispute is quite large in area having dimension of 68x78 meter (5304 sq. meter). The property was let out for establishing saw mill. The case of the defendant was that when the property was let out there was a kothari, a pukka veranda and a long veranda covered by tin shed. The area of kothri and pucca veranda is only 140 sq. meter and the area of portion covered by tin shed is 26x68 meter. In this manner 1/3rd portion is covered and pucca construction is only in less than 3% area of the total land. In the rent receipts and their counter foils the property in dispute was described as open land of kollhu ghar (bullock driven sugar cane crusher). The tenant admitted that he had constructed a haudi (tank) in the tenanted portion. As far as pucca room, veranda and portion covered by tin shed is concerned landlord asserted that it was constructed by the tenant and tenant asserted that the entire construction was there when property was let out to him by the landlord. Regarding description of the tenanted property as open land in the rent receipts tenant took up the case that it was done in order to avoid the necessity of allotment (or further possibility of allotment to anyone else on the ground of deemed vacancy) under Rent Control Act (U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act 1972). This is such a plea which cannot be permitted to be raised in a Court of law because it amounts to boldly asserting and taking benefit of one’s own illegal action. If it was done then it was an illegality in which both, landlord as well as tenant were equal partners. No one can be permitted to assert that his earlier admission shall not be treated to be binding upon him as at that time the admission was made for some illegal gain. 6. Issues were framed in Original Suit No. 364 of 1987. Suits remained pending for 21 years however, no objection was taken by the tenant-appellant regarding non-framing of issues in Original Suit No. 288 of 1986. 6. Issues were framed in Original Suit No. 364 of 1987. Suits remained pending for 21 years however, no objection was taken by the tenant-appellant regarding non-framing of issues in Original Suit No. 288 of 1986. Before the lower appellate Court this plea was raised and a prayer was made for framing additional issues and to remand the matter. The lower appellate Court rightly rejected this plea. (However, the Court does not approve consumption of 25 pages in the judgment of the lower appellate Court for rejecting this plea). Lower appellate Court found that the entire controversy between the parties was covered by the issues framed in 1987 suit. In any case if the suit for eviction in which issues were framed is decreed, the other suit for injunction seeking demolition and to restrain the defendants from making construction becomes redundant. 7. Initially lower appellate Court had granted stay order on payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month as damages as against the agreed rent of Rs. 800/- in addition to Rs. 160/- as house tax and water tax. Against the said stay order writ petition was filed in this Court in which the damages were curtailed to Rs. 4,000/- per month and lower appellate Court was directed to decide the question of damages pendente lite and future. In the impugned judgment the lower appellate Court curtailed the pendente lite damages to the agreed rent until 7.11.1996 thereafter double of the said amount for next five years then triple the agreed rent for next five years and then four times agreed rent with effect from 8.11.2006. This amount is extremely reasonable rather on the lower side. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in these Second Appeals. Findings recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any error of law. 9. Second appeals are therefore dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 10. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment to the Director, J.T.R.I., Lucknow and also to place the same before Hon’ble the Chief Justice. ——————