SHAMBHU DAYAL Vs. NARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Rama Goel "Bansal", learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2018 passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Malik, Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jhansi in Civil Appeal no. 69 of 2016 and the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2016 passed by Sri Ranvijay Pratap Singh, Civil judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Jhansi in Oiginal Suit no. 378 of 2014.

(3.) Plaintiff instituted suit praying for possession over house no. 1339, present house no. 794, new house no. 1662/1A, Civil Lines, Ward no. 51, Gondu Compound, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi; that this property was received by the plaintiff from his maternal grandfather, Baldeo Singh, consisting of one room, angan, bathroom and open space; that the plaintiff and defendant belongs to same caste and known to each other; that defendant was residing in a house on rent and was being evicted by his landlord and therefore plaintiff permitted him to reside in the property in dispute as a licensee with the understanding that when the plaintiff will need the property he will vacate the same; that the defendant has purchased a house no. 768, Gondu Compound, Jhansi on 10.07.2002 and is residing therein but he is not vacating the house of the plaintiff and when the plaintiff asked him to vacate the same, he instituted a suit no. 239/2008 praying for a decree of injunction against the plaintiff claiming himself to be the tenant of the disputed house; that the plaintiff filed his written statement alleging him to be a licensee and also a counter claim for possession over the property. The trial court dismissed the suit of the defendant on 18.11.2009 and decreed the counter claim of the plaintiff for possession; that thereafter defendant preferred a Civil Appeal no. 111 of 2009 and the plaintiff preferred a Cross Appeal no. 111A of 2009 which were decided by the lower appellate court by the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2011; that the lower appellate court neither accepted the defendant as tenant nor licensee but permitted the parties to take further proceedings regarding the house and dispute; that the defendant admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the house but the lower appellate court neither accepted him to be tenant nor licensee; that therefore the defendant is only a trespasser and the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the disputed house from him; the defendant is not ready to handover the possession therefore the suit has been instituted.