- (1.)IN this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the quashing has been prayed of the orders filed as Annexure P/I0 and P/12 passed respectively by Second Civil Judge Class -II, Gwalior, in Execution Case No. 47N60 -91 and by the Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Revision No. 171/92.
(2.)BEFORE dealing with the contentions advanced by both the parties, it is relevant to mention here the broad features and facts of the case:
Respondent No.1 Gomti Bai W/o Bhagwandas had filed the suit in the year 1961 against the petitioner for eviction from the suit house on the basis of tenancy. In the suit, she had in the alternative also claimed possession on the basis of her title in the suit property. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

The petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He had asserted his possession on the suit house as owner of the property. His case was that the rent house was an evacuee property and under a conveyance deed, executed by President of India, in his favour, he was the landlord himself and the respondent had no right title or interest in the suit house. It may be relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had transferred the suit house by way of the sale deed in favour of his two brothers named Mulak Raj and Baldev Raj and had allegedly parted with its possession.

(3.)IN second appeal, respondent No.1 had moved an application for amendment, for the trial of the suit only as a suit for possession on the basis of title.
This Court in S.A. 179 of 1977 in the circumstances of the case observed that : -"3. xx xx xx xx xx

It is true that the suit had remained pending for more than 12 years. It is also apparent that despite there being a claim for possession on the basis of title, no specific issue was framed on that count and the matter was also not tried accordingly."

Since the plaintiff/respondent No.1's claim was not purely on the ground of relationship of landlord and tenant as it was based also on the title and the defendant/petitioner was denying the relationship of landlord -tenant, the defendant/respondent gave up those grounds for his eviction on that count. The application was allowed.