VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. GOPAL JI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.C.C. Suit No. 37 of 2005, Gopal v. Vinod was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment by plaintiff-landlord against defendant-tenant. In said case, written-statement was filed by defendant claiming to be the co-owner of disputed house because of of the Benami transaction of purchase of this house by his father in the name of his elder brother (plaintiff Gopal). Since defendant had denied his tenancy and claimed to be the co-owner of disputed house, therefore, on the basis of dispute being raised on rights and title of plaintiff, the plaint was returned in civil court, where it was registered as original suit no. 253 of 2007, Gopal Ji v. Vinod Kumar Gupta, in court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur.

(2.) In the trial court, plaint case was the same as it was in earlier Court of JSCC, as plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner and landlord of the house in question in which the defendant (present appellant) was his tenant, and after termination of tenancy as the status of defendant was that of trespasser; so plaintiff has sought relief of recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant from disputed house. In original suit, defendant filed written statement reiterating his earlier stand. He pleaded that disputed property was purchased by Ratan Lal Gupta, the father of parties, for joint Hindu family as Benami in the name of his brother Gopal Ji (plaintiff); then after the death of their parent, parties and their other brothers became co-owners of disputed house. Defendant further pleaded that his possession in this house is that of co-owner and not as tenant, therefore, suit should be dismissed.

(3.) The trial court had framed issues, accepted the adduced evidences and thereafter the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.-2, Gorakhpur had passed the judgment dated 19.02.2015, by which suit was partly decreed for eviction of defendant and handing over possession of disputed property to plaintiff. In this judgment, trial court had given finding to the effect that plaintiff had failed to prove that his relation with defendant was that of landlord and tenant; but the plaintiff is the sole owner of disputed property, and the defendant had failed to prove his pleading of co-ownership. Therefore, plaintiff's suit is partly decreed only for the eviction of defendant and for recovery of possession from him to plaintiff.