RAMSAMOOJ SAHADEV MOURYA Vs. RAMCHARAN JAYKARAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for eviction instituted in 1983 was decreed by the civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane on 15th December 1993. The order was upheld in appeal by the Joint District Judge, Thane on 31st July 1998. This petition was admitted on 1st September 1998. The petition now comes up for hearing.

(2.) THE Respondent instituted a suit for eviction on 14th september 1983. The material averment in support of the case of the Respondent was that he as a lessee of a piece of land situated at Ward No. 11, Chandanwadi, Thane, had erected a structure, including a room, admeasuring 150 sq. ft. thereon. The original defendant approached him in April 1981 and sought permission to occupy a room temporarily since the premises which he was to obtain were to take about a year for being ready for occupation. The Respondent accordingly granted permission to the original defendant to occupy the room on a monthly compensation of rs. 40/. The Respondent averred that the parties never intended to create a tenancy. Though the Defendant occupied the premises in May 1981, he remained in arrears of the compensation/rent payable, right from the inception. A notice dated 27th January 1983 was issued to the Defendant calling upon him to quit and vacate the premises and to pay the arrears of rent. There was an averment in the plaint that it was apprehended that the Defendant may claim tenancy rights and hence, the Plaintiffrespondent treated him as a tenant and addressed a notice on that basis. A decree for possession was accordingly sought.

(3.) IN the Written Statement filed by the original Defendant, the allegations in the plaint were denied. According to the defendant, he had obtained the piece of land admeasuring 15' x 10' on lease from the Respondent in February 1981 for constructing a structure thereon for the purposes of his residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/. The contention of the Defendant was that he had in February 1981 constructed a permanent structure thereon by expending an amount of Rs. 17,000/ towards the cost of construction. At the time of the execution of the lease, the defendant claimed to have paid an amount of Rs. 6,000/ by way of security deposit. The original Defendant to the suit denied the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the Respondent in respect of the suit premises. Consequently, it was averred that it was not open to the original Plaintiff to claim any rent for the structure.