RAMPRATAPSAH Vs. AYODHYA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's Second Appeal in a suit for ejectment from the suit premises and for arrears of rent. The plaintiff-respondents brought the suit with the averment that Block No. 129 of Madhopura Notified Area Committee under Khata No. 851 belonged to Shri S. N. Banerjee, Advocate, Madhopura and within this block there were two other holdings, which were described as Holding Nos. 1 and 2 containing hutment. Shri. S. N. Banerjee settled the suit land at a monthly rent of Rs 10/-with the defendant as tenant who used to pay rent to Shri S. N. Banerjee. The plaintiff purchased 10 kathas of lard of Block No. 129 from Shri S. N. Banerjee, including two hutments by a sale deed dated 19-4-1963. The premises bearing holding No. 2 (Schedule 1 of the plaint) has been in occupation of the defendant from before as a tenant since the time of Shri S. N. Banerjee. As she defendant was it appears) of rent, he was served with a notice dated 6-5-1963 through the Advocate of the plaintiff, but to no effect and the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the suit premises. Even though the suit land was. required for personal necessity, but the same appears to have not been pressed. There was relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendents. But the defendant refused to pay the rent. Further the plaintiff has personal necessity also. The suit was a accordingly filed.

(2.) The defence was total denial and the defendant denied that he was tenant and alleged that he himself was owner and has built the house himself and that it was never buil by S. N. Banerjee or the plaintiff nor it was let out to him. There was some vacant land in the northern and eastern side. There was an oral settlement of northern and eastern portion of Plot Nos. 4035 and 4036 of Khata No. 851 by the sons of Shri S N. Banerjee with the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 6/-for agricultural and horticultural purposes and that the defendant himself constructed house in that portion and that defendant was not a tenant. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant argued at great length and it was contended that the plaintiff was not owner of the house in question, rather on the basis of an oral settlement from five sons of late A. C. Banerjee the defendant was owner of the same, and that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was false and fabricated. It was further urged that in case the plaintiff's title was disputed by the defendant-appellant who set up his own title, the plaintiff must have paid the Ad voleram Court Fee.