S.D.AGARWALA, J. - (1.) A suit No. 264 of 1976 was filed by Thakur Prasad against Brij Mohan Lal Gupta for ejectment on the allegation that Thakur Prasad was the tenant of the property in suit and Brij Mohan Lal Gupta was a licensee. He having terminated his license, was entitled to the decree for ejectment against Brij Mohan Lal Gupta. The property in dispute is house No. 188, situate in Baluaghat, Allahabad. This suit was based on the allegation that originally late R. Mitra was the owner and landlord of the accommodation in question. He gave this property in dispute on rent to Thakur Prasad as well as house No. 189, which is adjacent to the house in dispute. It was further alleged that Ram Lal who was the original defendant in the suit and father of Brij Mohan Lal Gupta was his distant nephew, who was running in financial crises and, consequently, he permitted Ram Lal to occupy the ground floor portion of house No. 188, which is the subject-matter of dispute. It was further stated that subsequently, as the family of Ram Lal had expended, he permitted Ram Lal to occupy the first floor also as a licensee. It has also been stated that Ram Lal subsequently got another house constructed in Mohalla Baluaghat, Allahabad for his son Brij Lal Gupta and consequently, he requested Ram Lal to vacate the premises in suit, but since he failed to vacate the property, the suit was filed for ejectment and recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 12 per mensum. This suit was contested on the ground that Ram Lal became the owner of the property by virtue of adverse possession. It appears that during the trial of the suit, a case of tenancy was also set up by Ram Lal though, in fact, the said case was not pleaded in the written statement.
(2.) ON 4th August, 1978, Smt. Rashmi Keshari purchased the house No. 188 in dispute by a registered sale-deed from Smt. Isha Bagchi and son Prakash Bagchi for a consideration of Rs. 20,000. After the purchase by Smt. Rashmi Keshari another suit No. 166 of 1980 was filed by her against Thakur Prasad and Brij Mohan Gupta for ejectment. It was alleged in the said suit that Thakur Prasad was the tenant of the property in dispute and Brij Mohan Lal Gupta was the licensee of Thakur Prasad. Thakur Prasad did not pay rent since Ist June, 1975 inspite of repeated demands, Brij Mohan Lal Gupta denied her title and inspite of notices of demand and termination of tenancy, the house was not vacated and hence the suit was filed for ejectment of the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages. It may, at this stage, be stated that Thakur Prasad is the father-in-law of Smt. Rashmi Keshari. He admitted that he is the tenant of the property in suit, but the suit, in fact, was contested by Ram Lal and after his death, by Brij Mohan Lal Gupta on the ground that they have become the owners of the Property by virtue of adverse possession. Both the suits were decided by a common judgment of the Judge Small Cause Court, Allahabad on 30th September, 1982 and the same were decreed. Against the judgment dated 30th September, 1982 two appeals were filed, one being Civil Appeal No. 228 of 1982 arising out of judgment in suit No. 264 of 1976 and the other being Civil Revision No. 713 of 1982 arising out of suit No. 166 of 1980. Both the civil appeal as well as the civil revision were dismissed by VIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad by the judgment dated 19.1.1984. Since in suit No. 166 of 1980, a revision had been filed in the Court below, the judgment dated 19.1.1984 was challenged by writ petition No. 2766 of 1984 in this Court. The judgment dated 19.1.1984 arising out of suit No. 264 of 1976 was challenged by means of a Second Appeal No. 643 of 1984. Writ Petition was admitted on 8th November, 1984 and it was directed that the writ be connected with the second appeal mentioned above. In the circumstances both the writ petitions as well as the second appeal have come up for hearing before me together. Since both the writ petition as well as the second appeal arise out of the same property in dispute and were decided by a common judgment of the Courts below, the same are being decided by a common judgment.
(3.) I have heard Sri K.N. Tripathi on behalf of Sri Brij Mohan Lal Gupta and Sri S.N. Agarwal, on behalf of respondent No. 3, Smt. Rashmi Keshari in both the cases. Learned counsel for Brij Mohan Lal Gupta has urged that the judgment given by the trial Court as well as Appellate Court is vitiated in law, as the Courts below have ignored material evidence as well as the admission made by the respondents in their evidence.;