MADHUKAR SAW MILL Vs. NITINKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this court under section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure, the unsuccessful appellants defendants have filed this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 6-5-1989 passed by the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 61 / 1987, whereby the appeal has been dismissed alongwith cross objections and the judgment and decree dated 2-5-1987 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division in regular Civil Suit No. 311 /1983 directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit plots shown by letters I J K L M D H G and to pay Rs. 2, 390/- with interest on account of arrears of rent, was confirmed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for our purpose can be stated as under : the suit plots No. 721, 722, 723, 724 and 725 in sheet No. 9-C situated at Tumsar were initially owned by Sitabai, the mother of plaintiff No. 3 and grand mother of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The said open plots were given on lease by Sitabai and Shantaram, plaintiff No. 3 in the name of defendant No. 4 Madhukar Yeshwantrao Kukade from 9-5-1956 on the rent of Rs. 350/- per month for the period of five years with direction that the lease (Exh. 86) shall be renewed at the will of both the parties after it expiry. The lease was given for erection of saw mill. Thereafter, another agreement dated 9-12-1962 (Exh. 87) was executed whereby the suit plots were agreed to be given in possession of the defendants on rent till the period 30-10-1967 @ Rs. 720/- per year. The parties have agreed that the rent of Rs. 60/ - per month would be payable on 10th of each month and after the expiry of the period of lease the defendants had agreed to vacate it. But, even after the expiry of lease, the defendants did not vacate the premises, and therefore, quit notice dated 26-4-1967 was served and the defendants were called upon to vacate the suit premises by 31-10-1967, but in vain. Thereafter, the second quit notice dated 1-7-1980 was served and the same was not also acted upon and subsequently the third quit notice dated 6-9-1983 was served and the tenancy was terminated and the defendants were called upon to deliver possession of the premises by the end of September, 1983. The defendants did not vacate the suit premises. Sitabai had bequeathed her share to her grant sons, i. e. respondents No. 1 and 2 and they have become the full owners of the property and since the defendants did not vacate it and did not pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 2,160/-and damages @ Rs. 10/- per day from 1-10-1983 amounting to Rs. 230/-, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages.

(3.) The defendants contended that the lease deed which was initially executed on 28-6-1956 was in the name of Madhukar, who was minor on that day and it was for a specific period of five years. Similarly, another lease deed was executed on 9-12-1962 in the name of same Madhukar and the period of lease was for five years and both these lease deeds were not registered, and therefore, were not legal and valid. According to the defendants they have acquired title to the suit plots by virtue of adverse possession.