KESHAV PRASAD Vs. SATENDRA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Sri W. H. Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri N. C. Rajwanshi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manik Chandra Misra, appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the parties submit that this appeal at the admission stage may be decided finally. As such the appeal is being taken up for final disposal. THE appeal be admitted. THE following substantial question of law is formulated. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed patent legal error in not placing reliance upon the fact that the continuous payment of rent by the plaintiff to the defendants in respect of the disputed premises after the death of the original tenant had conferred the status of tenant on such plaintiff.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants stating that Ram Kripal Dwivedi who was occupying the premises as tenant died in the year 1975, but at no point of time before or after his death the defendants recognized the plaintiff as their tenant. It is just quite casually that when the plaintiff visited Banda after the death of his uncle, he was given the concession by the defendants to occupy that premises for few days and thereafter the accommodation used to be locked with key available with the defendants only. Thus, it has been asserted in the written statement that since the plaintiff did not have any right to occupy the premises as a tenant, there was no cause of action in his favour for the grant of relief of permanent injunction.