YADAV MAHADU KOLI Vs. SUMITRABAI POPATLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application is filed by original defendant against whom decree of eviction is passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nandurbar in R.C.S. No. 73 of 1985 decided on 20.9.1999 which judgment and decree is further confirmed by District Judge-I, Nandurbar in R.C.A. No. 36 of 1999 decided on 17.10.2007.

(2.) It is no more disputed that the present appellants, who are the legal representatives of original defendant Yadav Koli, are tenants of the respondents in the suit premises i.e. house constructed on plot No. 40 in Shri Ambika Colony, Nandurbar. The original suit was filed for eviction on the grounds that the defendant Yadav Koli was willful defaulter, that he had damaged the property and that the tenancy of the defendant was forfeited as a result of disclaimer of plaintiff's title by the defendant. The suit is decreed by the trial Court on the ground of disclaimer of title and the said decision is upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge and it is this order which is challenged in this revision.

(3.) The ground of disclaimer was added by way of amendment to the plaint by adding paragraph 4-A. It is stated therein that by contentions raised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the written statement (Exh. 12), the defendant Yadav Koli denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is stated by defendant in paragraph 2 of the written statement that the say of the plaintiff that plot No. 40 in Shri Ambika Colony and house constructed thereon was owned and possessed by plaintiff, is false. Plot is owned by Shri Ambika Society and the house was constructed on that plot out of loan given by Cooperative Housing Finance Society, Mumbai to Ambika Co-operative Housing Society and therefore the plot and the building thereon are not owned by the plaintiff and the same belong to Shri Ambika Co-operative Housing Society. It is, however, stated in paragraph 3 of the written Statement that the defendant had taken suit premises on rent from the plaintiff and Shri Ambika Society at the rate of Rs. 175/= p.m. and had agreed to pay taxes in respect of the suit premises. It is further stated that the house premises were taken on rent by defendant from Shri Ambika Housing Society.