SALIMUL RAHMAN Vs. AZIZUL RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-78 passed by the Civil Judge, Kanpur in Civil Appeal No. 426/74, Azizul Rahman v. Salimul Rahman & another, whereby the 1st appellate court has allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for all the reliefs claimed. This appeal itself arose out of judgment and order dated 13-4-74 passed by the the VIth Addl. Munsif, Kanpur (City) in C. S. No. 1939 of 1969 Azizul Rahman v. Salimul Rahman, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs giving rise to the present appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Azizul Rahman filed A O. S. No. 1939 of 1969 in the court of Munsif City, Kanpur for a decree of possession of an accommodation detailed at the foot of the plaint, a decree for damages for Rs. 52, mense profit @ 10 per month and so on. He has alleged that he is the owner of house No. 545/1, Faithfulganj, Kanpur as detailed at the foot of the plaint. Originally Abdulla alias Habib Ullah was the owner of the said house. He was the father of the plaintiff. He sold it to the plaintiff by means of a sale deed dated 24-11-62 and gave possession to him and since then he is the owner and in possession of the house. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the disputed property. The defendants are relations of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2, who is widow of Alimul Rehman, the brother of the plaintiff. The defendants are residing and are in oc cupation of the Khapraila Dalan and open roof of the first floor of the said house as plaintiffs licensee. PLAINTIFF has revoked the licence of the defendants by notice dated 9-9-68, which was served upon the defendants on or about 15-9-68. The defendants did not vacate the accommodation. Therefore, damages @ Rs. 5 per month an amount on which the same can be let out from the date of revocation of licence i. e. 9-9-68 till the date of actual possession has been claimed, apart from recurring damages at the same rate.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the Civil Appeal No. 426 of 94. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge, by virtue of the impugned order and judgment, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this Second Appeal.