MAHADEI HALUAI Vs. RAM KRISHNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendant No. 1. It arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for eviction of defendant No. 1 from the property mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint. There was a prayer for the removal of the structures raised by defendant No. 1 on the land in dispute. The plaintiff had claimed damages and compensation also.

(2.) The plaintiff's case, in short, was as folows: The land in dispute measuring 2 kathas 10 dhurs originally belonged to pro forma defendant No. 2. The land had been let out to defendant No. 1 as a monthly tenant for temporary residential purposes. Defendant No. 2 had sold the land to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated the 10th October 1953. According to the plaintiff defendant No. 1 was, therefore, in possession of the land in dispute as a monthly tenant under the plaintiff. The plaintiff having required the land for his own use, had served a notice upon defendant No. 1 to deliver possession to the plaintiff after removing the structures standing on the land in dispute. Defendant No. 1 not having complied with the notice, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the suit for the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 alone. The defence, in substance, was as follows. According to this defendant, the land in suit had been permanently settled with her by defendant No. 2 by virtue of a Patta dated the 8th June 1936, on receipt of a premium of Rs. 500/- and at an annual rent of Rs. 2/2/-. Under the document of settlement, the defendant was given the right to use the land for residential purposes, and the defendant had, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the land in dispute and was continuing in possession by payment of rent. The defendant, therefore, contended that she was not liable to eviction. The defendant's further case was that after taking the settlement mentioned above, she had got her name mutated in the Jugselai Notified Area Committee in place of defendant No. 2, and she was paying municipal tax since the settlement. The defendant had applied to the Notified Area Committee for sanctioning the plan of certain structures, but she had not been able to construct the entire structure on account of paucity of funds. She had, however, constructed a building which was being used by her. The plaintiffs case that he was entitled to evict the defendant by service of notice was denied. Substantially upon these allegations, defendant No. 1 contended that the plaintiffs suit was liable to be dismissed.