ABDUL RAUF Vs. SAYARA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri Bageshwari Prasad, 2nd Subordinate Judge, Gaya, in Title Appeal No. 54/1979 /Title Appeal No. 1/1980. The defendant of the Title Suit No. 354 of 1974 was the appellant in the 1st Appellate Court and he is the appellant before this Court as well. The trial Court.(Munsif 1st, Gaya) had decreed the suit of the respondents against which the sole defendant filed the first appeal and he is appellant before this Court.

(2.) The relevant, facts for decision of this appeal are that the aforementioned title suit was filed by one Abdul Ajij and his brother Md. Siddiquee (since deceased and whose heirs were substituted) making a plea that plot Nos. 83 and 84 having a total area of 30 decimals after amalgamation under khata No. 94 was under the joint ownership of the two brothers. Abdul Ajij was the managing owner of the property and defendant Abdul Rauf approached Abdul Ajij to grant tenancy over 22 decimala of the aforesaid plots and an agreement was entered into which was on a stamped paper (without registration) and the defendant was put in possession over the suit land on 16 -1 -1967 on a monthly rental of Rs. 10/ -. The defendant paid rent upto the month of April, 1972, but thereafter he failed to pay the rent. A Lawyer's notice was sent to him terminating his tenancy and demanding arrears of rent and a reply was sent making irrelevant allegations. So, the suit was filed seeking arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 270/ - and eviction of the defendant was also sought. The eviction of the defendant was sought alternatively on the ground that the plaintiffs had their title over the suit land and the defendant was not entitled to continue in its occupation. Ad volerem Court -fees was also paid.

(3.) The defendant through his W.S. stated that by mutual arrangement between Abdul Ajij and Siddiquee the suit land fell to the share of Siddiquee. Thereafter, Siddiquee orally gifted the suit land to his daughter Jubaida in the year Baishakh, 1962. Thereafter Jubaida inducted the defendant on the suit land in the year 1965 on a monthly rental of Rs. 5/ -. Subsequently, the defendant purchased the suit land by two registered sale -deeds from Jubaida. Therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant nor he had defaulted in payment of rent. He was also not served a notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act. Allegedreply of this notice was manufactured by the plaintiff. So, the defendant resisted his eviction from the suit premises on the pleas raised by the plaintiff.