RAMESH RAMCHANDRA NEWARE Vs. SHANKAR MAHADEO CHEFALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been filed by the original defendant No. 1. The respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff and the respondent no. 2 is the defendant No. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as "plaintiff and "defendant Nos. 1 and 2". FACTS

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for possession and damages against the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2, is a corporate body known as Nagpur housing and Area Development Board, Nagpur. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was working in Pulgaon Cotton Mills Limited, Pulgaon. Similarly, the defendant No. 1 was also working in the same mill. The plaintiff applied to the defendant No. 2 for the allotment of the suit quarter under the scheme of hire purchase basis. The application was considered and he was allotted the suit quarter No. 61 in Pulgaon old colony. It is his specific case that, he was put in possession on 1-12-1976 and he paid an amount of Rs. 884/- as per the rules of the defendant No. 2. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he started paying rent Rs. 11. 78 per month to the defendant No. 2 regularly. It is thus his case that he had paid an amount of Rs. 2,950/- as a complete consideration of the said quarter. It is further averred in the plaint that he had entered into an agreement to purchase the said quarter on hire purchase basis and he paid the consideration. The case of the plaintiff is that, however, in the first week of August, 1978, the defendant No. 1 took illegal possession of the quarter in his absence and when the plaintiff returned in the month of October, 1978, he found that the defendant was occupying the quarter. The plaintiff also lodged a police complaint alleging that his articles in the house were missing.

(3.) PETITIONER, therefore, filed the present suit for possession and damages on the ground that he is the owner of the premises and that the defendant No. 1 is the trespasser. The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and denied all the claims of the plaintiff. According to him, he was not residing in the suit quarter, but he claimed the possession on the false ground. The defendants' case was that the quarter in question was laying vacant since 1976 and, therefore, by virtue of the order passed by the respondent No. 2, he occupied the said quarter in the month of September 1978 and started paying the rent. Thereafter, he was asked to purchase the said quarter under the hire purchase claim by defendant No. 2 and accordingly he paid the said amount and he has been paying the rent upto date.