- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 29.10.2002 by which the respondents' appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that according to the plaintiff, in family settlement dated 5.2.1987, she got the land in dispute. The said land was let out to the defendant no.1 on 1.7.1987 on monthly rent of Rs.425/- per month. The said land was sublet to the defendants no.2 and 3 and the defendants materially altered the suit premises, therefore, the plaintiff sought decree for eviction of his tenant as well as sub-tenants. The plaintiff also pleaded that she needs the suit premises bonafidely. The plaintiff in her plaint very specifically pleaded that not a single penny was paid by the defendant no.1 against the rent to the plaintiff and, therefore, the defendant no.1 has committed default in payment of rent, therefore, on this count alone, she is entitled to decree for possession.
(3.) The defendants came up with the case that the defendant no.1 was not the tenant in suit premises and in fact, he was in possession of the suit premises in different position and thereafter, the plaintiff's husband agreed to sell the property in question to the defendant no.1 on 22.3.1971 for which an agreement was executed. The defendant also pleaded that thereafter, the construction was raised by them over the property in dispute. In support of her case, the plaintiff herself gave her statement and produced witness Durga Dutt, who is her husband's brother.;