Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 111 (JHR)

Debu Bengali @ Debu Prasad Banerjee v. Md. Zameel

2011-02-18

POONAM SRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastav, J. 1. Heard counsel for the revisionist. 2. The instant application arises from the proceeding under Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. The suit was preferred by the Plaintiff Respondent on the basis of claiming ownership and also that he is a landlord of the disputed premises which was in occupation of the revisionist in the capacity of tenant. The revisionist contested the suit and claimed his title, but the basis of the title was "Adverse Possession". 3. Issue No. 3 was framed as under: Whether there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and Defendant. 4. The learned court below has discussed this issue at length and has also examined and made a detailed appraisal of evidence. There was a saledeed in favour of the Plaintiff regarding the disputed property and there was oral evidence which was uncontroverted. The Defendant was unable to show the source of his acquisition of his suit property. He was unable to substantiate his claim of adverse possession by means of any cogent documentary evidence or otherwise and also could not disclose the date of his possession, which was adverse to the original owner and when he became the owner of the property? The cross-examination of the Defendant has also been considered by the court below. 5. I have gone through the judgment. It has specifically discussed the evidence of the Defendant where he has stated in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge that the suit property was purchased by Plaintiff as well as the fact that the rent was being paid to the Plaintiff @ Rs. 250/ per month. Since the revisionist is claiming and has staked his title on the disputed property, on the basis of 'adverse possession', a heavy onus was on his shoulders to establish the circumstances necessary to conclude that the possession of the revisionist was continuous and within the knowledge of the Plaintiff. There is no assertion to the said effect. The court thrashed out the entire matter and there was not an iota of evidence to substantiate his claim of adverse possession. The suit has rightly been decreed. There is no good ground for interference. The instant revision lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 6. There is no assertion to the said effect. The court thrashed out the entire matter and there was not an iota of evidence to substantiate his claim of adverse possession. The suit has rightly been decreed. There is no good ground for interference. The instant revision lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the end, the revisionist's counsel submitted that the revisionist is residing in the disputed accommodation since almost 50 years and he has no other place to live and he will suffer irreparable loss if he is asked to vacate the premises forthwith. 7. The request appears to be justified. The revisionist is permitted to reside in the disputed accommodation for a period of six months from today provided he files an undertaking before the court below that he shall continue to pay damages and rent claimed by the Plaintiff @ Rs. 250/ per month, till the date he hands over possession. The revisionist shall not be evicted till the expiry of the period of six months.