RADHESHYAM Vs. TULJAPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 14th October, 2005 rendered by the learned 3rd Joint Civil judge, (J. D. ) Hingoli purported to have been passed under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil procedure. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge directed the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs. 36,000/- towards arrears of rent and to further deposit an amount of Rs. 1000/- per month towards damages for occupying the suit premises.

(3.) It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival pleadings. It suffices to mention that the respondents filed suit (RCS No. 52/2004) for recovery of Rs. 36,000/- alleging that they are purchasers of house property bearing Municipal Nos. 243 and 244 situated in ward No. 22, Hingoli and that defendant/petitioner was in occupation of a part of the constructed portion oral consent of the previous owner. They further alleged that after 9-3-2001 the defendant illegally occupied one adjacent room and started using the same. Their basic contention is that the defendant is in illegal possession of both the rooms. Hence they sought recovery of damages. The petitioner/defendant denied all the material allegations. He denied that he has committed trespass over one of the room. He also denied that the respondents are the owners of the house property. It is his case that he was inducted in possession by the previous owner shankarlal Agrawal and the latter's son gopal. He is tenant in respect of the premises in question and had paid the rent to the said Shankarlal prior to the alleged sale transaction between Shankarlal and the respondents which they have allegedly purchased by virtue of sale deed dated 18-3-1993.