MAHADEO TATU NAIK Vs. RAMAKANT ATMARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT:- This Second Civil Appeal directed against the judgment dt. 31st Aug. 1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) At the hearing, however, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant restricted his submissions to the first two questions and did not press the third. Therefore, while disposing of this appeal, I will address myself only to the said first two questions.

(3.) A suit for possession has been filed by the respondent 1 against the appellant herein and the respondent 2 on the grounds that there exists a house bearing Gram Panchayat No. 74 situated at Vithalpur, Sanquelim. The land where the house is standing belonged to one. Dattaram Vithoba Fatarpenkar and was purchased on 13th September, 1966 by the plaintiff/respondent 1 herein. According to the said respondent, the father of the present appellant was in possession of the said house as a licensee and after his death, respondent 1 continued in possession of the same house, also as a licensee, and although he was not entitled to let the house, he allowed the respondent 2 to carry on works as a Mechanic in the said house. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent 1 requested the appellant to deliver vacant possession of the house, but he failed to do so.