NET RAM Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for recovery of possession brought at the instance of the plaintiff on a contention that the defendant was a trespasser of land was resisted by the defendant, contending that he was a tenant. The trial Court decreed the suit and rejected the defendant's contention. The appeal confirmed the same. The second appeal is brought for admission against the concurrent decree providing for recovery of possession. The Court had ordered notice of motion on 02.11.1986 and on later date on 19.03.1987 directed the status quo with regard to possession to be maintained and admitted the appeal and ordered notice. At the time when the admission was sought, the appellant relied on Ex. D2 and contended that the courts below have not dealt with that document or considered. On the basis of the pleading and the document which was issued, I would formulate, therefore, the following substantial question of law: - -

(2.) IN a manner of assessing the burden of proof, the defendant had to therefore establish that he was a tenant in order to ward off the suit for the eviction. The document relied on did not prove tenancy. There is no favourable point to be answered in appeal for the appellant. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant and the appeal is dismissed.