KEDAR DAS Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dt. 07.04.1994 by which the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondent -tenant and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dt. 25.11.93 by which the trial Court passed the decree of eviction against the respondent -defendant. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, the only question involved is whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant.

(2.) FOLLOWING substantial question of law was framed by this Court while admitting the appeal on 27.11.1996:

(3.) APART from above, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction alleging that the defendant is his tenant on the ground that defendant is in occupation as tenant on rent of Rs. 7/ -. per month. The defendant paid rent to plaintiff's predecessor Ramanand Puri and that rent was paid upto the period 31.12.1980. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Shri Ramanand Puri by registered sale deed dt. 04.04.1983. Admittedly, in the sale -deed dt. 04.04.1983, there is mention that Ramanand Puri, the seller of the property handed over rent deed and rent receipts obviously of the property in dispute and further obviously it must have been in relation to the alleged tenancy of defendant in the suit premises. The plaintiff though filed the suit in the year 1983, did not produce the rent deed and rent receipts initially and not only this but when the defendant specifically took a plea that the defendant was not tenant of even Ramanand Puri, the plaintiff's predecessor in title even then the plaintiff did not produce the rent deed and rent receipts which are mentioned in the sale -deed dt. 04.04.1983, as handed over to the plaintiff. Even after the stand of the defendant in the written statement in the year 1986, that he is not tenant in the suit property, the plaintiff did not obtain the rent deed or rent receipts from the said seller if the statement of the plaintiff given in the trial Court is correct that though there is mention of delivery of rent deed and rent receipts to plaintiff by the seller of the property but he did not in fact took rent receipts and rent deed from the seller.