NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant - appellant(s) against the judgment and decree of affirmance. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they had purchased the suit land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 6.6.1986. At the time of the said purchase there were tenants in different portions of the suit premises. The defendants were in occupation of a portion of the suit building. The said defendants had attorned to the plaintiffs after coming to know about their said purchase. According to the plaintiffs, in spite of the same, the defendants defaulted in payment of rent and thereby rendered themselves liable for eviction. The plaintiffs contended that they also require the premises bona fide and in good faith for their own used and occupation.
(2.) THE defendants contested the plaintiffs claim and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. According to the defendants, they have been in possession of the suit property, which is part of a Temple, named, Devi Mandap, in their own right, title. The defendants also denied the alleged attornment and payment of rent to the plaintiffs. They also disputed the plaintiffs claim of right, title, interest and possession over the portion, which is under their (defendant 's) occupation. They also disputed the description of the suit property, mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. On the said pleadings, the trial Court framed several issues and decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, holding the defendants as defaulter and accepting the plaintiffs claim of requirement of suit premises for their use and occupation. The suit was accordingly decreed. The defendants thereafter filed appeal, being Title Appeal No. 06/48 of 2002. The Lower Appellate Court, after consideration of the points, raised before him and also on fresh appraisal of oral and documentary evidences, upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has filed this appeal.
(3.) A petition for stay of execution of the impugned decree has been also filed. At the stage of hearing on the application for stay, the respondents also appeared through their Counsel. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal itself was taken up for hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11, CPC.;