(1.) THIS is an appeal from the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts decreeing the Plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession of a house that was in the occupation of the Defendant and for other consequential reliefs.
(2.) THE disputed house stands on four cents of land in plot Nos. 1265, 1266 and 1267 of Mouza Harekrishnapur. The Plaintiffs' Case was that the house was constructed by their father and was used as their Khamar house for the purpose of temporary storage of paddy, mung and other products of that village. The Plaintiffs were residents of Puri town where they had Jatri business but they had extensive lands amounting to about 100 acres in village Hakrishnapur and several other villages in the vicinity. On 15 -1 -43, the Defendant agreed to look after their property and hence the Plaintiffs permitted him to reside in the house as a licensee. Subsequently the Defendant was dismissed from the Plaintiffs' service and asked to vacate the house. But he refused to do so and hence the necessity for the suit. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant was a mere licensee and was therefore not entitled to a regular notice to quit like a tenant.
(3.) BOTH the lower Courts disbelieved the Defendant's story that he obtained lease of the house site from the Plaintiffs' father and constructed the house thereon. The main reason for disbelieving the Defendant's case was the absence of documentary evidence either, to prove the original lease or to show payment of any rent to the Plaintiffs' family all along. Having thus disbelieved the Defendant's case they accepted the Plaintiffs' version that the disputed house belonged to the Plaintiffs and that the Defendant was merely permitted to occupy the same as a licensee so long as he was in the service of the Plaintiffs. They, therefore, held that the Defendant was liable to eviction as soon as he was discharged from service and that as a licensee he was not entitled to the usual notice under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.