NARSLNGH SINGH Vs. URMILA BAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 246 of 1982 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The judgment and decree of the learned Judge dated 15-1-1983 are challenged in this appeal. The convenience warrants the reference of the parties as the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff claiming to be the landlady of the defendant in regard to the suit property filed the suit for possession and for recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.8,700-00 and also for compensation for use and occupation at Rs. 300-00 per mensem from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. The suit property should be styled as demised premises in the nature of the suit and it is described as a plot of land measuring about 2,869 Sq. yards in Ward No. 14, Block No. 8, situate at Seethamata Temple, Kanika Adda, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. The defendant resisted the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff is the wife of one Laxmi Narayan Singh. She claimed that the demised premises belong to her having purchased it from one Gannu Singh under registered sale deed dated 10-7-1970 for a valuable consideration of Rs.12,000-00. She claims that she and her husband were, in possession of the same. Her husband and defendant were on cordial terms and under the circumstances the premises was leased out to the defendant by her husband at a rental of Rs. 300-00 per mensem with effect from 1-9-1970 under an oral lease. She alleged that defendant paid the rental till 1-8-1975 i.e., till the death of her husband, namely, on 26-8-1975 and since then he stopped the payment of rent. When he failed to pay the rent as alleged, she demanded him to pay the rent, got a notice issued to him through her Advocate dated 17-9-1977, his tenancy was terminated by issuing the notice with effect from 1-10-1977, and the defendant replied the notice on 24-10-1977 denying the liability to deliver possession of the premises and also to pay the arrears of rent and further setting up his own right to the premises, the plaintiff had to file the suit for the reliefs as above. The defendant in his written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff, he denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit premises, he pleaded that the suit property was purchased by him and the husband of the plaintiff but only in the name of the plaintiff, that he actually paid the consideration to the property, there was a panchayat in regard to the disputes between the parties whereby the Panchayat gave a decision in his favour about his right and possession to the premises, that he never paid rent to the husband of the plaintiff or to the plaintiff or at any time as he is in possession of the property in his own right, that the suit is not maintainable, that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and it may be dismissed with costs.

(3.) These issues were settled: