RAM NATH Vs. NETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's second appeal against the decision of the Civil Judge, Budaun dismissing their suit for possession of a house against the defendant. The plaintiffs Badri Prasad and Trilok Chand alleged in their plaint that they were the owners of an abata in the town of Bisauli and the houses situate in it, having purchased it from the previous owners in 1950. They further state that the defendant's father and uncle were the tenants of the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, having taken a lease for ten years in the year 1915 and executed a qabuliat in token of it; that after the death of the defendant's father, in or about 1922, they inherited the tenancy rights and continued as tenants without interruption and paid rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants defaulted in the payment of rent and they were compelled to terminate their tenancy by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendants, however, did not vacate the house in dispute; hence the suit.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit and denied that he was in possession of the house under any contract of tenancy. He denied that his father and uncle had executed any qabuliat, and pleaded in the alternative that it was obtained by fraud and that it was not binding on the defendant, at any rate. He denied even the plaintiff's title as owner, and alleged that his father had constructed the house in dispute. His case was that his father and uncle were not tenants but mere licensees of the plaintiff and the license terminated on the death of the father; after this the defendant continued in possession as a trespasser and perfected his title by adverse possession after twelve years. He pleaded that the plaintiffs suit was time barred.

(3.) The trial court disbelieved the version of the defendant that the house in dispute was constructed by his father and held that the plaintiffs were the owners of it. But it found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the defendant in other words, the defendant was in occupation of the house after the death of his father as a trespasser. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit as time-barred.