LAXMINARAYAN GUPTA Vs. DURGADEVI THAKURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE disputed land was an abadi land of the landlords Manoranjan Deb and Manmathnath Deb who were brothers. Plaintiff's case is that on 5-5-44 Manmathnath Deb settled 1.98 acres of land including the disputed land in Sthitiban right on the plaintiff deity with her daughter-in-law Sm. Nandarani Debi as the marfatdar. Plaintiff constructed the suit house and has been paying rent to the landlord, and after vesting to the Anchal Defendant took the disputed house on monthly rent. One of the houses had two rooms and defendant was paying Rs. 3 as rent for that house. He was paying rent of Rs. 2/8/- for the second house having three rooms. Defendant defaulted in payment of rent from Chaitra 1930 Sal. THE suit is for declaration of title and recovery of Rs. 187 as arrear of rent. THE defence case is that he never took the disputed houses from the plaintiff on rent. Plaintiff's title to the disputed land and house was challenged. Defendant's positive case is that the two landlords were separate before the abolition of the estate and plaintiff cannot acquire a valid title without getting lease from both the landlords and without a registered document. According to the defendant, his father and thereafter he himself had taken the lease of the houses when those were kutcha at O. 50 P and Rs. 2/8/- respectively, the first one for the residence and the second one holding a shop. Later on, the defendant wanted to set up a huller machine in one of the rooms of the second house. He approached the landlords who allowed him to cement the floor agreeing to enhance the rent of the first house from Rs. -/8/- to Rs. 3. THE rent of the second house continued at Rs. 2/8/- per month.

(2.) THE learned trial court recorded the following findings: (a) THE amalnama executed in favour of the plaintiff by one of the co-sharer landlord did not create any tenancy in favour of the plaintiff which was not for agricultural purposes. (b) THE amalnama and the rent receipts taken together show that the tenancy was created by the landlords. (c) Plaintiff's case that he constructed the houses after taking delivery of possession of the land is not acceptable. Defendant used to reside in the very houses prior to the execution of the amalnama. Defendant himself remodelled the kutcha house. (d) Defendant admitted the title of the plaintiff as landlord in respect of the suit house.