MOHD. HANIF Vs. SYED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1986 (Sayed Khan and others Vs. Mohammad Hanif Khan) dated 20.3.1990.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit being Original Suit No. 47 of 1977 with a prayer for eviction of the defendant from the disputed land and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 600.00 along with Rs.80.00 as damages. The further relief for mandatory injunction for the removal of certain illegal constructions as had been erected by the defendant over the disputed land was also there. Permanent injunction was also prayed for to restrain the defendants from making any further constructions. The suit was dismissed. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs-respondents had come up with a case that the disputed property was situate in Kasba Bhula Shahari, Pargana Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur and was numbered as plot no. 107/2 having an area of 2 Biswas and 4 Dhurs. The property, as per the plaint case, belonged to the father of the plaintiffs, Tayyab Khan who was the owner in possession of the suit property. The further averment was that 20 years prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs along with their father had erected a verandah and a room to the west of the disputed property and the remaining land in the east of the built up portion was kept vacant for their use as sehan and land appurtenant. The further allegation was that 15 years prior to the institution of the suit, the father of the plaintiffs, Tayyab Khan died and thereafter, the plaintiffs became bhoomidhars of plot no. 107/ 2. As per the plaint allegations, the defendant had requested the plaintiffs for letting out the room at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per month for running a shop and ever since then the defendants had been continuing in possession and had been paying regular rent. However, the plaintiffs alleged that when they had gone out of their home town in connection with their jobs then the defendant had inducted an outsider by the name of Panna and the defendant further had opened a door on the eastern side of the room and had begun to use the vacant land by putting his Nad and Chhappar etc. The further allegation was that upon having found the illegal entry of the defendant over the land in question and the concomitant mutation in revenue records plaintiffs sent a registered notice to the defendant for eviction and for arrears of rent. The defendant denied his status of a1-13 tenant and in his reply, stated that in fact, the defendant was the owner of the property in question. This necessitated the filing of the suit. The written statement of the defendant was filed denying the allegations of the plaint, specially that t1-13he disputed land was situate in plot no. 107/2.