LAWS(ALL)-2022-11-188

SIYA DULARAI Vs. RAM DAYAL

Decided On November 10, 2022
Siya Dularai Appellant
V/S
RAM DAYAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.

(2.) Instant second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the defendants-appellants assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 29/10/2021 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Dehat in civil appeal no. 20 of 2019 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 11/3/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat in Original Suit No. 345 of 1986, Ram Dayal (substituted by his legal heirs) vs. Smt. Siya Dulari and others.

(3.) Facts culled out from the record on board are that Ram Dayal (substituted by his legal heirs), plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for eviction, possession and payment of arrears of rent against defendants-appellants alleging therein that the property in question was basically belonged to one Daya Krishna Paliwal, who had executed a registered sale deed dtd. 8/10/1963 in favour of Ram Dayal (plaintiff). After purchasing the property in question Ram Dayal has rented out southern portion of the house in question consist of one Kothari and one Dalan to one Bhura Nai (predecessor in the interest of defendants- appellants) at the monthly rent of Rs.5.00 w.e.f. 1/1/1964. The tenancy was started from the first date of every English calendar month and completed on last date of English calendar month. Bhura Nai, who was also one of the witness of the sale deed, had died in the month of May, 1966 leaving behind him his widow (defendant-appellant no. 1), two sons and two daughters. The defendant no. 1/appellant no. 1 had continued to pay rent till July, 1966, however, since August, 1966 she had stopped paying rent. Thereafter, Ram Dayal had sent registered notice dtd. 29/10/1968 to the defendant for payment of arrears of rent and to vacate the portion of property in question which is in their possession. Notice was received by the defendant on 15/11/1968, however, neither she has vacated the premises in question nor paid the rent, as claimed by the plaintiff.