ABDUL HABIS KACHI Vs. MASTAN KHAN @ MASTAN AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda in Title Appeal No.21/3 of 1997-99 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jharsuguda in Title Suit No.25/33 of 1992-93. The present respondent as plaintiff filed the above noted suit for eviction of the appellant from a residential house situated in Ward No.19 of Jharsuguda (herein after referred to as the "suit house"), where the appellant was a tenant. His case was that he is the landlord of the suit house and is now in bona fide requirement of the said house. Before filing of the suit he had also served a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act on the appellant indicating therein about the termination of the tenancy and demanding eviction from the suit house. The defendant-appellant contested that suit pleading inter alia that the suit house belonged to the father of the respondent and he as landlord had tenanted the said house to him and now that he is dead leaving behind several heirs the suit for eviction is not maintainable by the respondent, who is not the sole owner or landlord. The Appellant further contended that even after service of notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, the respondent went on accepting rent of the suit house from him thereby allowing the renewal/continuance of the tenancy and so, he is protected under Section 116 of the T.P. Act and is not liable to be evicted from the suit house.

(2.) Considering the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed as many as six issues and accepted evidence of the parties. On consideration of such evidence the said Court decreed the suit for eviction with specific finding that the respondent was the landlord of the suit house and that he did not allow the tenancy to continue after service of the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. Such finding of the trial Judge was challenged in the appeal, but the appellate Court having confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, this second appeal has been filed.

(3.) In this appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration;