DHARMI BAI Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Apart that the memorandum of this second appeal does not state any substantial question of law, after examining the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that this second appeal even otherwise does not involve any question of law and least any substantial question of law.

(2.) In the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-appellant raised objection regarding locus of the plaintiff to maintain the suit while denying his ownership of the suit house and while denying existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendant-appellant further asserted that she has never made payment of rent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has relied upon a rent-note dated 07.06.1983 (Ex.1) to which the defendant asserted that her thumb impressions were obtained on the blank papers in the garb of taking measurements and under coercion; and she had lodged a report in that relation at Police Station, Bali and consequent thereto, cognizance was taken and the case was tried and copy of decision thereof shall be filed as soon as received. The defendant-appellant also alleged that the suit house was bequeathed to her by its owner Smt. Badami Bai in the year 1980 and thus, she was in its possession as owner.

(3.) The learned trial court framed relevant issues and after taking evidence led by the parties held that the plaintiff has been able to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties particularly on the basis of the rent-note dated 07.06.1983 (Ex.1); and disbelieved the case of the defendant- appellant that her thumb impressions were obtained forcibly or under misrepresentation. The learned trial court found that the FIR referred to by the defendant was lodged by her son and even the said criminal proceedings ultimately terminated in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court also found that the premises were situated in the village area, Sewadi, where the provisions of the Rent Control Act did not apply and the tenancy was terminated by a valid notice, and hence held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession. The learned trial court rejected the case of the defendant about her adverse possession and so also of a Will having been made in her favour, after considering the material as produced on record, and after noticing that relevant evidence was omitted to be produced on record.