NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE defendant -appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2003 passed in Title Appeal No. 35 of 2003, upholding and affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1995 passed by learned Sub Judge, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 89 of 1990.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit praying relief for a decree for declaration of his title and for recovery of khas possession and also for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs case was that the suit land appertaining to Khata No. 16 and 143, Plot No. 3334, area 62 decimals out of 17 Katthas and 15 chatak and plot No. 2019 area 15 Kathas and 8 chataks upon which one single storied building having two separate flats was constructed, consisting of 5 rooms, one kitchen, sanitary latrine, one bathroom and three verandahs of which the plaintiff -company is the owner. The said property of the company M/s Jitendra Investment Company was being looked after by one of its directors, namely, Sri J.K. Agarwala. The defendant happens to be the managers of the sister cavern of the plaintiff -Company namely Anup Male -ables Ltd. He was introduced to the said Director Shri Agrawalla by the then Manager of the firm M/s. Anup Maleables one Shri D.N. Jha. The defendant, thereafter, requested to allow him to reside in the said premises on the assurance that he will vacate the same whenever the vacant possession of the premises is required by them. It has been stated that when the Company required the suit premises for accommodation of its employee who is residing outside Dhanbad, the defendant was requested to vacate the premises. When he did not vacate inspite of several requests, a notice dated 1.5.1990 was served on the defendant requesting to deliver vacant possession. But inspite of the same, he did not vacate and hand over the possession. The defendant, on the contrary, replied the notice, stating that he was in -ducted as a monthly tenant in the premises since 1978 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/ -(Rupees One Thousand) per month. He has let out a portion to a sub - tenant, Rajiv Ranjan at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - (Rupees Three Hundred) per month and that the plaintiff company has entered into an agreement for sale of the said property with the defendant on a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/ - (Rupees Five Lakh) out of which the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - (Rupees Three Lakh) as part payment of the said consideration amount. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the said plea of agreement is a got up story and any such deed of agreement must be a manufactured document, deliberately created with malicious intention. The Company or its director had never received any amount nor any of the directors has put signature on the alleged agreement dated 5.8.1988.
(3.) THE defendant appeared and contested the suit. In his written statement, he has taken several grounds of law and inter -alia stated that M/s. Anup Maleables Ltd. is a sister concern of the plaintiff -company and that the allegation that defendant was allowed only temporary accommodation in the suit premises is wholly baseless. The original defendant subsequently entered into an agreement for sale of the said suit premises on a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/ - (Rupees Five Lakh) out of which Rs. 3,00,000/ -(Rupees Three Lakh) was already paid as a part payment of the consideration amount. The defendant, thereafter, continued in possession as such over the entire land and house as a purchaser and the plea of his possession as permissive is baseless. It has been stated that the defendant has been still continuing in possession as per the agreement of sale.;