SWARUP KUMAR PATTNAIK Vs. ANANTA PRASAD SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed questioning the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in RFA No. 30 of 2015. By the said judgment and decree in the first appeal, the learned lower appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in C.S. No. 420/224 of 2010-11 by affirming all the findings recorded therein. The suit filed by the respondent as plaintiff which had been decreed by the trial court directing the appellant-defendant to vacate the suit shop room and to hand over possession of the same to the respondent-plaintiff as also to pay the arrear rent and damage as indicated therein having thus held the field, in the present second appeal, all those are challenged by the unsuccessful defendant as the appellant.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) Plaintiff's case is that he is the owner in possession of the land over which the suit shop room with other rooms stand. He had purchased the same from one Sri Lohit Dash by registered sale deed dated 18.5.2007 for valuable consideration. Pursuant to the same, the land has been mutated in the name of the plaintiff under separate khata. The possession of the suit land and houses standing over there having been handed over by the vendor namely, Lohit, the plaintiff has taken over the same This is said to be with the knowledge of all the tenants including the defendant in occupation of different rooms standing over the suit land. It is stated that all the tenants then in occupation of different rooms standing in a row on the said land accepted and acknowledged the plaintiff as their land lord and thus continued to remain under him as before as they were under said Lohit from whom the plaintiff purchased the property in question.