TRINATH SAHU Vs. POLAKI SRIDEVI PATRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati, Berhampur in RFA No. 15 of 2005 confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur in T.A. No. 137 of 1995.

(2.) THE present respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit with the pleading that she is the owner and landlord of the suit house and she inducted the present appellants as tenants in that house, but the appellants -tenants defaulted in payment of rent. She also pleaded that she needed the suit house for her personal use and therefore, served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act', in short) asking the appellants to quit the house, but when the latter failed to vacate the house, she filed the suit for eviction and damages.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court framed as many as six issues, accepted evidence of the parties and on consideration such evidence, came to hold that the defendant No. 1 had taken the suit house on rent for a short period with the promise to vacate the same for use of the plaintiff at short notice, that the defendant No. 1 was not a defaulter in payment of rent, that the plea of demand of higher rent of Rs. 1500/ - was probable, that the defendants are liable to vacate the suit house and to pay damages at Rs. 1500/ - per month till the date of vacation. The defendants carried appeal before the learned District Judge, Ganjam -Gajapati, Berhampur. The present respondent also carried cross -appeal. On re -consideration of the evidence and the submission of the counsel for the parties, learned first appellate Court in the impugned judgment held that the notice under Section 106 of the Act is valid, that the tenancy did not continue by waiver or holding over, that there was bona fide requirement of the landlord and accordingly, dismissed the appeal while allowing the part of the cross appeal. The said judgment and decree of the learned 1st appellate Court is under challenge in this appeal.