DILLIP KUMAR PAL Vs. HEMALATA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents as plaintiffs instituted the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit house and realisation of compensation @ Rs.100.00 per month from 1/4/1995.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule house consisting of two rooms situated over plot no.84 of M.S. Khata No.224 corresponding to C.S. Plot No. 77, area of Ac.0.09 dec. of Mouza- Jagannathpur originally belonged to Krutibash Panda and Bhagaban Panda. Both have equal shares. In an amicable family partition about 60 years back, Krutibash Panda got Ac.0.04-1/2 dec. of land on the eastern side of the plot. In the major settlement, the plot was increased to Ac.0.10 dec. as a result of which, the area of both Krutibash Panda and Bhagaban Panda was increased to Ac.0.05 dec. Bhagaban Panda died. After him, his widow, Sabitri Dibya succeeded to his property. She constructed some houses and let out to different persons including one Dhruba Charan Pal, the husband of defendant no.1. Previously there was a suit bearing no.126 of 1975-I in the court of Munsif, Bhadrak in which, Dhruba Charan Pal was defendant no.7. He had filed the written statement admitting Sabitri Dibya as his landlord. The suit was decreed. The matter was carried to apex Court. On 28/9/1976, Sabitri Dibya gifted an area of Ac.03-9/10 dec. of land in favour of plaintiff no.2 by means of a registered gift deed. Thereafter, plaintiff no.2 became the owner in possession of the said land. Prior to that, on 25/8/1975, she had transferred 600 square links out of Ac.0.04-1/2 dec. of land along with some other lands in favour of plaintiff no.1 by means of a registered sale deed. Plaintiff no.1 became the owner in possession of that land. At the time of transfer of land by Sabitri Dibya in favour of the plaintiffs, Dhruba Charan Pal, the husband of defendant no.1 was a tenant of the land. In view of the alienation, he was paying rent to them. In the M.S.R.O.R., the said land has been recorded in the name of the plaintiffs. They are paying rent, holding tax and also repairing the house. It is further stated that when the plaintiff acquired the land along with the house situated over the same, Dhruba Charan Pal had no house. He purchased a land, constructed the house and shifted there. After death of Dhruba Charan Pal, defendant no.1 was in possession of that house. To take care of her, she kept defendant nos.2 & 3, her grand-sons with her. In the year, 1993, due to heavy rain, the house of defendant no.1 was inundated in water and unfit for human habitation. Thereafter, defendant no.1 approached the plaintiffs to remain in the house till repairing. Realizing the difficulty of the defendant no.1, the plaintiffs allowed her to remain in their house with the condition that she will vacate the house in January, 1994. She did not vacate the suit house. The persuasion made by the plaintiffs ended in a fiasco. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the husband of defendant no.1 was a class-IV employee in Bhadrak College. He died in the year 1979 leaving behind defendant no.1 and their five daughters. In the year, 1958, he along with his family members remained in the suit house as tenants under Sabitri Dibya. During his tenancy, Sabitri Dibya alienated the suit house to one Hemanta Bhatacharya. Hemanta Bhatacharya was accepting rent of the house as a landlord. Thereafter, Hemanta Bhatacharya alienated the suit land in favour of Krutibash Panda. Krutibash Panda became the landlord of the house. After death of the husband of defendant no.1, she along with her family members is staying in the suit house. She was paying rent to Krutibash Panda and after his death to his wife and sons. The plaintiffs are not in possession over the suit house. Neither Dhruba Charan Pal, nor defendants were tenants under the plaintiffs at any point of time. The plaintiffs have filed a suit against Krutibash Panda in the court of Munsif, Bhadrak bearing No. 126 of 1975-I, which is now sub judice before the apex Court. Since defendant no.1 was not a tenant of the plaintiffs, she cannot be evicted.