PARBATI SHAM ACHARY Vs. MANASI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the defendant, is against a decree of affirmance arising out of a suit for declaration of title to and ejectment of the defendant from the suit house, for recovery of arrear of rent of Rs. 150/- and compensation of Rs. 625/- with pendente lite and further interest.

(2.) PLOT No. 1828 measuring an area of 0. 08 acre under khata No. 788 in athgarh town is recorded as 'rasta' in the settlement record of rights, but in the remarks column thereof there is an entry to the effect that one Sk. Amir All is in forcible possession of the same by constructing a house thereon since 1938. The plaintiff's case was that he purchased the house of 2 bakharas standing on a portion of that plot from Sk. Amir All by means of a registered sale deed dated 18-9-68 (Ext. 4) and took delivery of possession of the same. The defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of the house under the said Sk. Amir All and after execution of the sale deed (Ext. 4) he attorned to the plaintiff. On 10-10-68 he paid a sum of Rs. 10 as arrear rent to the plaintiff and executed an agreement (Ext. 5) in her favour agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. But he did not pay the rent for the month of October, 1968 as per the terms of the agreement. As the plaintiff's husband wanted to open a medicine shop in the house in question he sent a notice (Ext. 13) to the defendant demanding arrears of rent from October, 1968 to February, 1969 and requiring him to deliver vacant possession of the house to the plaintiff, but the defendant refused to accept the 'notice. So the plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) THE defence contention was that the suit plot belongs to the Government and that Sk. Amir Ali had no title to the same. It was alleged that the plaintiff did not acquire any title to the suit land by virtue of her sale deed (Ext. 4) and that the defendant has been in possession of the same since 1956 after constructing a house thereon. He denied the allegations of attornment and execution of the agreement. He also alleged that the notice Ext. 13 was never tendered to him and that the State Government who was the real owner of the suit property having not been impleaded the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.