SYED AHEMED AND ORS. Vs. VENKATYESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the order passed by the District Munsif Cum Rent Controller at Tirupur in E.P. No. 22 of 2008 in R.C.O.P No. 8 of 2005.

(2.) THE first respondent had initiated eviction proceedings against the second respondent in RCOP No. 8 of 2005 on the grounds of wilful default and for demolition and reconstruction. Due to non -appearance of the second respondent, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 16.06.2006. The first respondent laid an execution petition in E.P. No. 22 of 2008 for recovery of possession. In the execution petition, the petitioners filed E.A. No. 107 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C contending that the tenanted premises originally belong to the first petitioner's ancestors namely Sheik Mohammed and others. He died long back leaving the first petitioner's mother Fathima Bibi and the petitioner's father Gows Bai as his legal heirs. Since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and the second respondent Mrs. Mohamed Bibi is their distant relative and she was not in possession of the premises.

(3.) THE second petitioner Mrs. Noorjahan examined herself as PW1 and also produced documents. PW1 in her evidence has admitted that she was not aware on whose name the house tax receipts stand, that whereabouts of her father Mohammed Gows is not known, that she has not given any complaint nor given advertisement about missing of her father, that she was not aware of the property details, viz. Plot Number, T.S. Number, and the extent of the property, etc. She has further deposed that she was not aware of the payment of water tax and she has fairly admitted that she has not produced any documents of title standing in the name of her predecessors.