JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Defendant No. 1 (after his death substituted by his legal heirs) is the Appellant. 2. The appeal arises out of a suit for eviction of Defendant No. 1 from the suit house and recovery of possession and realisation of Rs. 450/- from him towards use and occupation of the suit house from June, 1976 to the end of August, 1977 and also realisation of the future rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. 3. The case of the Plaintiff (respondent No. 1 in this appeal) is that he purchased a suit house under a registered sale deed dated 18-3-1976 for a consideration of Rs. 6.500/- from the Respondent No. 2. defendant No. 2 and got symbolic possession from the Defendant No. 1, who was the tenant occupying the said house under Respondent No. 2-defendant No. 2 i. e., Kota Baurani Choudhury (after her death substituted by her legal heirs). Initially, Defendant No. 1 according to the Plaintiff, created disturbances in the way of smooth sale and purchase of the suit house by the Plaintiff and when the Plaintiff ultimately succeeded in purchasing the same, Defendant No. 1 approached him to remain as tenant under the Plaintiff till May, 1976 and paid rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month which was agreed upon by both parties. After May, 1976 when the Plaintiff asked him to vacate the suit premises, he postponed the same on some pretext or the other. Therefore, the Plaintiff sent an Advocate's notice by registered post demanding payment of arrear rent as well as vacation of the suit premises. On receipt of the same, Defendant No. 1 sent a reply though his advocate denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. 4. The plea of the Defendant No. 1 is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. The house belonged to Defendant No. 2. under whom he was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs 10/- for 2 to 3 years prior to 1976. According to him one P. Balakrishna Patro, a close relation (Sambandhi) of Defendant No. 2 was looking after the house as the son of Defendant No. 2 was staying in Burla, the said Bala Krishna Patro wanted to sell away the suit house. According to him one P. Balakrishna Patro, a close relation (Sambandhi) of Defendant No. 2 was looking after the house as the son of Defendant No. 2 was staying in Burla, the said Bala Krishna Patro wanted to sell away the suit house. Defendant No. 1 desired to purchase the same, and paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards the consideration money to Sri P. Balakrishna Patro on 12-3-1976. But Defendant No. 2 deferred the execution of the sale deed.Ultimately,inspite of registered notice issued by him to the Plaintiff and to P. Balakrishna Patro to execute the sale deed in his favour, the Defendant No. 2 clandestinely sold the house to the plairitiff. According to Defendant No. 1, there is no question of tenancy under the Plaintiff as he has paid the consideration money for the suit house. 5. Defendant No. 2 in her written statement admitted to have sold the house to the Plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 18-3-1976. According to her symbolic possession of the said house was given to the Plaintiff by Defendant No. 1 and he was accepted as a tenant by the Plaintiff. 6. The trial court rejected the plea of Defendant No. 1 and held as follows: The claim of ownership of the house by Defendant t No. 1 appears to be a malafide attempt to create impediment of the title of the suit house in which sale was complete and title passed to the Plaintiff under Ext. 1. Thereby, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit house after purchase of the same under registered sale deed and entitled to evict Defendant No. 1 from the suit house and realise damages by way of rent for use and occupation of the suit house by Defendant No..1 Accordingly, the suit was decreed against Defendant No. 1 on contest by declaring the title of the Plaintiff over the suit house and directed to give delivery of possession within six months. Further the Plaintiff was held to be entitled to recover damages by way of rent from June 1976 till the date of delivery of possesson. 7. The decree of the civil court is challenged by the Defendant No. 1 on various grounds and in course of argument, Mr. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that the sale deed Ext. Further the Plaintiff was held to be entitled to recover damages by way of rent from June 1976 till the date of delivery of possesson. 7. The decree of the civil court is challenged by the Defendant No. 1 on various grounds and in course of argument, Mr. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that the sale deed Ext. 1 executed in favour of the Plaintiff is not a valid and legal document and no consideration was passed thereunder. Moreover, Defendant No. 1 had paid the consideration amount on 12-3-1976 to Defendant No. 2 who had promised to execute the sale deed shortly and that the Defendant No. 1 was occupying the suit house on and from 12-8-1976 not as a tenant but as the owner. 8. The first contention of Mr. Sahoo that the document under Ext. 1 is not a valid document and no consideration passed under the same does not hold good in view of the statement made by p. w. 1 who is the son of Defendant No. 2 i. e. the original owner of the suit house, where he has admitted to have received Rs. 6,000/- before the Sub-Registrar on the date of execution of the sale deed and Rs. 500/- about one year prior to the execution of the sale deed as advance.The aforesaid evidence of p. w. 1 remained undisturbed. He has withstood the rigors of cross-examination and supported the plea taken in the written statement by his mother. The Plaintiff examined as many as 4 witnesses including himself and all the witnesses including himself and all the witnesses corroborated the case of the Plaintiff. Their evidence remained undisturbed even during the cross-examination.On the other hand, there is no evidence on record to disprove the factum of execution of sale deed and the Defendant No. 1, i. e. the present Appellant, has miserably failed to prove that he had paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to Defendant No. 2 towards price of the suit house. Apart from that, P. Balakrishna Patro, who according to the Defendant No. 1 was negotiating between the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 for transfer of the said house in favour of Defendant No. 1 has not been examined by the Defendant No. 1. 9. 6,000/- to Defendant No. 2 towards price of the suit house. Apart from that, P. Balakrishna Patro, who according to the Defendant No. 1 was negotiating between the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 for transfer of the said house in favour of Defendant No. 1 has not been examined by the Defendant No. 1. 9. A close scrutiny of the oral evidence of the witnesses and the documents exhibited by the Plaintiff belies the story of the Defendant No. 1 that he is the owner of the house. On the other hand, it fortifies the claim of the Plaintiff that the suit house has been passed on to him under registered sale deed Ext. 1 and he is the absolute owner having title over the same. The finding of the trial court needs no interference as the same is an outcome of correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 10. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 11. Mr. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the Appellant prays to grant some time to deliver vacant possession of the suit house. Considering the prayer and submission of Mr. Sahoo. I direct that the Appellant shall deliver vacant possession of the suit house to the Plaintiff by the end of October, 2000 and during the said period he shall pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- to the Plaintiff starting from the 1st August, 2000. This order is subject to the condition that the Appellant shall give an undertaking before this Court within ten days hence to the effect that he shall abide by the aforesaid direction, failing which the order extending the period to retain the house till October, 2000 shall be non-operative and the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to take appropriate action under the law for evicting the Appellant Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed