MADAN MOHAN RAM Vs. BHAMA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Sec. 100 Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 20/11/2004 and 4/12/2004 respectively passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Khurda in Title Appeal No.18/4 of 2004-2001. By the said judgment and decree, while allowing Appeal filed by the present Respondent (Defendant) under sec. 96 of the Code, the judgment and decree dtd. 11/12/2000 and 5/1/2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banpur in Title Suit No.13 of 1995, have been set aside. The Appellant-Plaintiff has been non-suited in the suit that he had filed against the Respondent (Defendant No.1) for her eviction from the suit premises, claiming arrear rent as damage. It may be stated here that the original Appellant (Plaintiff) having died, now his legal heirs, having come on record, are pursuing this Appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

(3.) The Plaintiff's case is that he is the landlord in respect of the suit premises. The Defendant No.1 (Respondent No.1) is the sister of Defendant No.2 (Respondent No.2). It is stated that they are the tenants-at-will under the Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. The Defendants 1 and 2 had taken the suit premises from the Plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs.140.00 and occupied the room in question in the month of January, 1992. They having paid the rent as agreed upon till 31/12/1994, thereafter defaulted in payment of the same. So, the Plaintiff served notice under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating their tenancy and demanding the vacant possession as also the payment of arrear house rent. That having not been paid any heed to, the suit has been filed.