PURUSOTTAM SAHU Vs. BALARAM PANDA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant No. 1 (after his death substituted by his legal heirs) is the Appellant.

(2.) THE appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of Defendant No. 1 from the suit house and recovery of possession and realisation of Rs. 450/ - from him towards use and occupation of the suit house from June, 1976 to the end of August, 1977 and also realisation of the future rent at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per month.

(3.) THE plea of the Defendant No. 1 is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. The house belonged to Defendant No. 2. under whom he was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs 10/ - for 2 to 3 years prior to 1976. According to him one P. Balakrishna Patro, a close relation (Sambandhi) of Defendant No. 2 was looking after the house as the son of Defendant No. 2 was staying in Burla, the said Bala Krishna Patro wanted to sell away the suit house. Defendant No. 1 desired to purchase the same, and paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - towards the consideration money to Sri P. Balakrishna Patro on 12 -3 -1976. But Defendant No. 2 deferred the execution of the sale deed. Ultimately, inspite of registered notice issued by him to the Plaintiff and to P. Balakrishna Patro to execute the sale deed in his favour, the Defendant No. 2 clandestinely sold the house to the plaintiff. According to Defendant No. 1, there is no question of tenancy under the Plaintiff as he has paid the consideration money for the suit house.