KLRANCHANDRA PAL Vs. BHONDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Raipur, affirming a decree of the 1st Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated are: THE suit relates to a portion of Khasra No. 257 which is the embankment of Kukri Talao, situate in Raipur. THE plot has been in occupation of the defendant Bhondu since the time of his father Thansingh. THE plaintiff served the defendant with a notice of ejectment demanding arrears of rent. THE plaintiff claims that the defendant has been his tenant since 1954 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2 and sued for ejectment since the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent since 1 st June 1958. THE defendant denied the tenancy and claimed to have been in possession of the suit plot in his own right for the last 20 years. On these facts, both Courts have concurrently found that the relation of landlord and tenant has not been established, and hence non-suited the plaintiff.

(3.) FOR a proper appreciation of the contentions raised on this aspect of the case, it is necessary to set out the circumstances under which the application was rejected. After the closure of evidence on 18th July 1963, the plaintiff moved the application for calling other independent evidence to impeach the testimony of P. W. 4 Chhotelal. The application was rejected forthwith by the first Court with the following reasons: