DASRAO Vs. GANPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original plaintiff is the present appellant. The plaintiff instituted a suit bearing R.C.S. No. 10/1976 before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Latur for possession of 1/4th vacant plot bearing No. 27/42 at Latur and for recovery of arrears of rent.

(2.) The defendant vide his written statement admitted the ownership of plaintiff over the suit site. The defendant contended that it was a yearly tenancy. The rent was Rs. 120/ per year. False notices were issued by the plaintiff. The defendant denied that he was in arrears. The defendant also contended that the notice terminating the tenancy is improper and not inconsonance with law and as such, the tenancy is not properly determined. The defendant further contended that the suit plot is not a vacant plot, but godown building is situated on said plot and is a house within the definition of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act of 1954" for the sake of brevity).

(3.) The plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit preferred regular civil appeal bearing No. 174/1984 to the District Court, Latur. The learned District Judge, Latur dismissed the appeal on the ground that the tenancy in question is yearly tenancy and the defendant is yearly tenant. The notice sent by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy is not legal and proper and that the defendant is not in arrears of rent. The lower Appellate Court, however, held that, "open plot" was leased and not a house.