SHIV DAYAL Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by Shiv Dayal defendant against a decree for ejectment which was passed against him by the two courts below in a suit brought by Smt. Sumitra Devi plaintiff in respect of a house situated at Kotah.

(2.) THE house was formerly owned by Narshi Karamshi and was occupied by Shiv Dayal as his tenant. A registered sale-deed in respect of it was executed by Narshi Karamshi on 7. 9. 55 in favour of Smt. Sumitra Devi plaintiff. THE house was sold for Rs. 3300/ -. At the time of the sale Shiv Dayal was in the occupation of the house. THE present suit for ejectment was brought on the allegation that he was in possession as a tenant of Narshi Karamshi and became a tenant of the plaintiff under sec. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was alleged that the tenancy was determined by means of a notice under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the house was needed by the plaintiff for her own residence. THE suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that Narshi Karamshi had agreed to sell it to him for Rs. 1800/- under an oral agreement and that a sum of Rs. 300/- was advanced by him as part payment of the price to the owner. Further it was alleged that the tenancy was no longer subsisting. THE receipt of the notice under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was denied.