- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent for eviction of the appellant/tenant vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.1999. The first appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.1.2006.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit for eviction of the tenant/defendant with the allegation that the suit property was let out to the defendant on 21.1.1993 for rent of Rs.50/- per month for which rent deed was executed by the defendant. After serving notice, the suit was filed by respondent/landlord.
(3.) In the written statement, the defendant claimed that he is not the tenant and submitted that there was money transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and during that course of business transaction, the plaintiff obtained signatures of the appellant on several papers. The defendant also pleaded that the suit property is defendant's ancestral property and in case, any sale deed is got executed from him in favour of the plaintiff, then that sale deed is forged, therefore, the suit be dismissed.;