DINESH LAL GUPTA Vs. RAM KARAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant/appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2005passed by Ist Addl. District Judge Sidhi in Civil Regular Appeal No. 14-A/03 affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.4.03 passed by IV Civil Judge Class-II, Sidhi in Civil Original Suit No. 256-A/02 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for eviction against him, has filed this appeal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that respondent herein filed the suit for eviction against the appellant with respect of a premises described in the plaint and the annexed map contending that defendant being tenant for residential purpose at the rate of Rs.45/- per month, is in possession of such accommodation from the time of its earlier owner Bhagwat Teli from whom the respondent acquired the title with consideration, through sale-deed dated 21.2.89. As per further averments, the impugned suit was filed for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent, bonafide genuine requirement of the repondent for residence of his family and on the ground of nuisance as the appellant has disclaimed the title of the respondent with respect of the premises.

(3.) In the written statement of the appellant, the averments of the plaint are denied. It is stated that initially he was inducted in the premises as tenant by Bhagwat Teli from whom he purchased the disputed accommodation through unregistered sale deed dated 5.9.88 and since then he is in possession as owner of the same. In such premises, the relationship of the landlord and tenant has come to an end. Subsequent to it, Bhagwat Teli did not have any authority or right to sell the disputed accommodation to the respondent and, in such premises, the respondent did not acquire any title with respect of the disputed house vide alleged sale deed dated 21.2.89 (Ex.P/14). It is also stated that the relationship of the landlord and tenant has not been established between the parties at any point of time. In such premises, the grounds stated in the plaint for eviction are also denied. In the special pleadings, it is stated that possession of the appellant over the disputed premises, in any case, is protected under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. In such premises, the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.