SARAL SONAR Vs. SUDAMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit to eject the appellant from a certain house alleging that he had been a monthly tenant since 1937 but the tenancy had been determined by notice. The lower appellate Court found that the tenancy had not been proved but that the plaintiff had established his title and that the defendants came into possession with the plaintiff's permission and he, therefore, gave a decree for recovery of possession.

(2.) It is urged that when the plaintiff's case about the tenancy had failed the suit should have been dismissed. A number of cases were cited before me and somewhat different views seem to have been taken on similar questions in the High Courts in India in different cases but the only two cases where the facts seem to have raised the question in a form very similar to the one now before me are a Full Bench decision reported in Abdul Ghani V/s. Mt. Babni (03) 25 All. 256 and a decision of a Judge of this Court reported in Mahomed Yusuf V/s. Mahomed Waheed A.I.R. 1936 Pat. 147. The Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court was almost exactly similar to the facts of the present case. The plaintiff came into Court alleging that the defendant had hired a house from him at a monthly rent and the plaintiff had given her notice to quit. The findings of the Court of first appeal after remand of issues by the High Court were that the plaintiff was the owner of the house, that the defendant occupied the house as a friend with the permission of the plaintiff and that the defendant had never before asserted her title to the house and that her possession was permissive.

(3.) It was held that the plaintiff was entitled, upon the facts found, to a decree for possession notwithstanding that his case had been that the defendant was his tenant.