BATAKALA BUDHIA PATRO Vs. DURGASI DANDASI PATRO
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
BATAKALA BUDHIA PATRO
DURGASI DANDASI PATRO
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Defendant No. 1 has preferred this appeal against the reversing decision of the court below.
(2.) The plaintiffs suit is for eviction of the defendants from the suit house and for realisation of arrear of rent till delivery of possession of the suit house. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that he let out on monthly lease the suit house belonging to him to defendant No. 1 on the Kumar Purnima day of 1965 (10-10-1965) for a period of five years on monthly rent of Rs. 3/-. As defendant No. 1 was a close relation of the plaintiff, no lease deed was executed while letting out the said house. Defendant No. 1 occupied the suit house and regularly paid the agreed rent till Baisakh Purnima of the year 1970, whereafter he defaulted to pay the rent in spite of demands. He also sublet the suit house to defendant No. 2. As the plaintiff did not receive payment of the house rent from defendant No. 1 and as the latter sublet the house to defendant No. 2, the plaintiff by serving a registered notice demanded vacant possession of the suit house. As the arrear rent was not paid and vacant possession of the suit house was not delivered, the plaintiff instituted this suit.
(3.) Defendant No. 1 alone contested the suit. According to him, the house belongs to him and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest in the same, nor was he ever in possession of the same. He has denied payment of any rent to the plaintiff in respect of the suit house. According to him, his father purchased the suit site from the mother of the plaintiff on 15-5-1925 by an unregistered sale deed (Ext. A) for Rs. 16/-and thereafter constructed the suit house on a portion thereof. After the death of his father defendant No. 1 inherited the suit property and he sold Ac.0.02 cents of land with the suit house standing thereon to defendant No. 2 under the registered sale deed (Ext. B) dated 5-6-1970 for Rs. 900/- and delivered possession of the same to defendant No. 2. It is also stated in his written statement that he and his father had also perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession and that the suit was barred by limitation. Defendant No, 2 died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives, defendants 2 (a) to 2 (c), supported the case of defendant No. 1 in the written statement filed by them. They did not contest the plaintiffs suit in any other manner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.