R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the record. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent. Plaintiff -respondent filed the suit claiming that he was owner of the house No. 458/453 situated in Mohalla Shahganj, Tehsil and District Unnao, which was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60. The tenancy of the house used to commence from the first date of the month and to come to end on the last date of the same month. The defendant did not pay the rent from the month of September 1984 to October, 1987, and an amount of Rs. 2220 for 37 months was, thus outstanding against him, which was not paid inspite of the demand, consequently tenancy of the defendant was terminated by means of a notice under Section 106, which was served upon him, the defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the house, hence the suit for the above mentioned relief.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant -appellant claiming that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the plaintiff had no concern with the house in dispute and that he was not owner of the same. The defendant claimed that he himself was the owner of the house in dispute. That the plaintiff -respondent got his name recorded in Municipal paper as owner of the said house on the basis of Farzi documents prepared by him. The house was stated to have been constructed by the defendant, himself. Plea of adverse possession was also taken and was claimed that the defendant was owner of the house in dispute by adverse possession. The suit was, thus, liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed three issues. The first issue related to the ownership of the parties, the second to valuation of the suit and the Court fee and the third to the relief.
(3.) THE trial Court while dealing with issue No. 1 recorded finding that the plaintiff was owner of the house in dispute, but there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Having recorded aforesaid findings, the trial Court decreed the suit in part. It was declared that the plaintiff was owner of the house in dispute. With respect of the rests of the relief the suit was dismissed.;