MURLIDHAR Vs. MADANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant, who has lost in two courts below was, by order dated 25-11-1982 admitted for final hearing on the substantial question of law set out below:

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that he is the owner of the building on Khanderao Bazar ward No. 6 town Tarana District Ujjain. Vide rent note dated 27-11-59 portions of the ground floor and first floor (DUSRI MANZIL) were let out to the defendant on a moly rent of Rs. 45.00, but portion shown with letters E. F. G. and H in red, in the map forming part of the plaint on first floor were given to the defendant on licence (SWECHHA SE BAPARNE KE LIYE DIYA THA). and that the defendant was in possession of the same with permission of the plaintiff. The relations between the plaintiff and the defendant had become strained and the defendant was damaging the portion E, F, G, and H given on licence to him and that the plaintiff himself required the aforesaid portion for his own use. He, therefore, by registered notice dated 15-1-1979 revoked licence in favour of the defendant and called upon him to deliver possession of the aforesaid portion to the plaintiff. The defendant did not accept the plaintiff's demand hence he instituted the suit claiming possession from the defendant of the portion as described in map accompanying the plaint. He also claimed damages.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement denied that the portion shown with letters E, F, G, & H in the map was given to him on licence. He contended that the portion was included in the accommodation tenanted to him and that he was not in permissive possession of the same as a licensee. In special pleadings it was urged that before the Rent controlling Authority Tarana (Ujjain) in case No. 64/63 in statement dated 28-9-1965 and in civil suit No. 71-B/66 of the court of civil judge class II, Tarana, statement dated 1-1-68 the plaintiff had admitted the defendant to be his tenant in respect of the aforesaid portion also and, therefore, he was estopped under Sec. 115 of the Indian Evidence Act in urging that the portion was given to him on lease.