RAM JANAM Vs. THAKUR JEE MAHARAJ DEITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original defendant-appellant, Megha Rai has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.1983 passed by 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Chapra in Title Appeal No.14/1 of 1982 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1981 partly passed by Munsif 1 st court, Chapra in Title Suit No.108 of 1977.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid Title Suit No.108 of 1977 praying for realization of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.330 and damages at the rate of rupees 1% per month and also for eviction of the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the deity is the owner of the suit land measuring 8 katthas 7 dhurs. The suit land was let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs.10. The defendant paid the rent @ Rs.10 upto December, 1974 and defaulted thereafter. The plaintiff served notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the defendant requesting him to pay the arrear of rent and to quit the suit land.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel, Mr. S.S.Dvivedi appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that once it was held by the Lower Appellate Court that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, the suit filed by the plaintiff should have been dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. The learned counsel submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has not considered the evidences adduced by the appellants properly and has recorded the finding wrongly that the defendant has not acquired title. According to the learned counsel, when the Lower Appellate Court recorded the finding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant then since the defendant is in possession of the property, the suit itself was barred by law of limitation but this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Lower Appellate Court. Therefore, the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated. The learned counsel further submitted that although, there is no case that the defendant is a licensee but the Lower Appellate Court made out a third case and recorded the finding that the defendant is a licensee.