RAJKISHORE BISWAL Vs. SIKHAR BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Sec. -100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), have assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 22/7/2022 and 5/8/2022 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Nayagarh in R.F.A. No.06 of 2019. The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the suit (Civil Suit No.08 of 2016) for eviction of the Appellants arraigned as the Defendants therein and recovery of possession of the suit land. The suit having been dismissed, the Respondents as the unsuccessful Plaintiffs had carried Appeal under Sec. -96 of the Code. The First Appeal has been allowed in part directing the Appellants (Defendants) to vacate the suit land within a month failing which the possession would stand recovered from them in favour of the Respondents (Plaintiffs) following due process of law. These Appellants, therefore, being the aggrieved the Defendants having suffered from the judgment and decree passed by the Frist Appellate Court have filed this Second 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 Trial Court.

(3.) Plaintiff's Case: - The suit land stands recorded in the name of the Plaintiff No.1, Sikhar Behera, Padana and Madhab Behera, the three sons of Chinta Behera. It is stated that in an amicable family partition, the suit land had fallen to the share of Sikhar; and he with his son had constructed house having asbestos roof over the suit land. The Defendants took the said house on rent from the Plaintiffs as agreed on payment on rent of Rs.500.00 per month to be paid by 15th day of the succeeding month of occupation. There was no document in support of the said creation of tenancy. However, the Defendants when were paying the rent, they defaulted in making the payment of rent for their occupation from 1/10/2015. The Plaintiffs, therefore, served notice upon the Defendants demanding the payment of arrear rent and to vacate the suit house. The Defendants did not respond the same and in turn threatened the Plaintiffs which compelled the Plaintiffs to file the suit.