KILLAMSETTI SURYANARAYAN Vs. MAHARAJA SRI SRI SRI VIKRAMA DEO VARMA AND AFTER HIM SRI RAMKRISHNA DEO, THROUGH NEXT FRIEND GENERAL MANAGER, SRI G.B. BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendant's first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22 -11 -49 of Sri G.B. Misra, Agency Subordinate Judge of Jeypore, arising out of a suit brought by the Plaintiff for ejectment of the Defendant from the disputed house and for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 93/ -. The Plaintiff is the Maharaja of Jeypore. The Plaintiff's case is that on the main road of Jeypore and on the western row thereof there was a thatched ahead consisting of three rooms abutting the temple compound wan of Shri Chaitanya. The Plaintiff is the landlord of these rooms and the room described in the schedule attached to the plaint is one of them which was let out to one V. Seetaramswamy on a monthly tenancy with a rental of Rs. 2/10/8 on the hasis of lease executed in the year 1927 (Ext. 3). The said Seetaramswamy having fallen into arrears of rent made an application to the Plaintiff for accepting the present Defendant Suryanarayan as a tenant in his place and that the Defendant was ready to pay up the arrears also on a demand notice being served on him. The Defendant having agreed to abide by the terms of the lease of the year 1927 and having undertaken to pay the entire amount of arrears of rent on receipt of a notice of demand, the house, in question, was lab out to the Defendant since the year 1981 on the same terms, that is, on a monthly rental of Rs. 2/10/8. The Maharaja's name appeared in the House Tax Demand Register preserved by the Union Board in respect of these three rooms prior to the year 1935. After the year 1935, the other two rooms stood recorded in the Register in the name of the Plaintiff. Maharaja as occupier; but in respect of the house, in question, for the years 1935 to 1940, the name of the Defendant was so entered in place of the Plaintiff. The same entry in the name of the Defendant was renewed in the next House Tax Demand Register for the years 1940 to 1945 and 1945 to 1950 as well. In the year 1948, the Plaintiff made an application before the Union Board for correcting the entry and recording his name in the place of that of the Defendant. Notice having been served on the Defendant and the Defendant having objected to in the Plaintiff's petition was rejected and the Defendant's name was allowed to continue. The Defendant asserted in those proceedings that he was the owner of the house and not the Maharaja. Thereafter the Plaintiff on 24 -7 -48 served a notice on the Defendant that the Defendant having dishonestly and maliciously asserted his title in respect of his (Plaintiff's) house adversely to that of the Plaintiff he was called upon to execute a rent -deed in favour of the Plaintiff or else a suit for ejectment was to be brought. In reply to this notice (Ext. 0) the Defendant completely repudiated the title of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit house and alleged that the Plaintiff's claim was absolutely frivolous. The Plaintiff, therefore, has brought the present suit on 5 -7 -49 chasing the plaint on the cause of action of the Defendant's repudiation of the title of the Plaintiff -landlord.

(2.) THE defence is that the room which was in existence in the -year 1927 belonged to Seetaramswamy and in the year 1981 the Defendant had purchased the room from him. Thereafter he had reconstructed the house by spending a sum of Rs. 1500/ - or more and is in possession of the house in his own right ever since the year 1931, and the Plaintiff has no right, title and interest whatsoever so far as the house is concerned. But the Plaintiff is only entitled to ground -rent of Rs. 2/10/8 and the rent is not payable in respect of the house which belongs to the Defendant. His further claim was that he being in adverse possession of the house for more than 12 years be had matured his title and, as such, was not liable to eviction, and his last plea is that in any event he is entitled to compensation to the extents of Rs. 500/ - which he spent in reconstructing the house.

(3.) MR . M.S. Rao, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, argues his first point that the rental of Rs. 2/10/8 was really one in respect of the site on which the house stood and not house -rent. In our opinion, this contention is bound to fail in the face of some, of the documents which appear to be unimpeachable. Ext. 3 is that deed of lease between the Defendant's predecessor Seetaramaswamy and the Plaintiff on 20 -4 -27. The recital in paragraph 2 of the lease makes the point absolutely clear and runs thus: