JACOB JOHN Vs. JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these interlocutory applications were the respondents in AS No. 254/1991. The suit was instituted by the appellants for recovery of possession on the strength of title. They contended in the suit that initially rent control proceedings had been initiated in which it was found that the denial of title by the tenant of the title of the landlord was bona fide and they had been relegated to a suit.

(2.) In the plaint they pointed out that the defendants are tenants under them and it was on that basis the eviction was sought for. Out of the several defendants the 1st defendant alone contested the suit. The others remained ex-parte. The 1st defendant contended that he alone had rights over suit property and he disputed the tenancy arrangement pleaded in the plaint and set up title in himself. To be more precise he contended that he had perfected his title by adverse possession and limitation and plaintiff no longer had any subsisting title. It is significant to notice that even in the rent control petition, the case set up by the 1st defendant/tenant who was characterised as a tenant by the landlord was not that though he was a tenant, the petitioner was not his landlord but the title vested in somebody else. His definite stand was that he had absolute title over the property and nobody else had any right over the suit property and he was not a tenant at all under anybody.

(3.) In the suit again the 1st defendant reiterated his claim of title in his favour and denied title of the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the contesting defendant as the tenant the 1st defendant who alone had contested did not accept that allegation and contended that he was not a tenant at all under anybody and the suit property belonged exclusively to him. He maintained the same stand as in rent control proceedings.