ORDER :

Sonia Gokani, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2017 passed by the City Civil Court No. 18, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3894 of 1997.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

2.1. The opponent shall be referred to as 'the plaintiff' and the appellant as 'the defendant' for the sake of convenience.

2.2. The appellant was the original defendant in the Suit. The opponent herein had filed suit being Civil Suit No. 3894 of 1997 for getting the possession of the property and mesne profit of Rs. 500/- per month. He has claimed to be the sole owner of the property situated at Ahmedabad in the area of Meghaninagar in Netajinagar Colony Block No. 27, Room No. 317 at 1st floor (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed property').

2.3. The registered sale deed has been effected in favour of the plaintiff on 06.08.1994 at serial No. 1670.

2.4. The ownership of the disputed property was of the Gujarat Housing Board which was allotted by way of rental purchase system to one Shri Balabhai Gulabdas Patel on 01.07.1970. It is the case of the plaintiff that he transferred this property to one Karsanbhai Gulabdas Patel on 24.06.1992, who gave this property to the plaintiff-Narendrakumar Raghavji Patel.

2.5. After drawing the panchnama and considering the application of the plaintiff, the property had been transferred in the name of the plaintiff on his full payment of the consideration.

2.6. A notice came to be issued to the defendant on 17.04.1993 for unauthorized living in the said property. The penalty was also imposed upon him of Rs. 1,000/- and resolution was passed to transfer the property to the plaintiff. The Gujarat Housing Board accordingly carried out the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff.

2.7. The defendant did not vacate the property, and therefore, a notice came to be issued on 22.07.1997 for handing over of the property, which he did not do. Hence, the suit came to be filed for getting the possession of the property and for mesne profit.

2.8. The defendant had severely resisted the Suit, after framing of the issues and parties have adduced the evidences, the Court below allowed the same on 29.11.2017, and hence, this appeal.

3. It is needed to be mentioned at the outset that prior to the filing of the appeal, in the Execution Petition preferred by the plaintiff, the possession of the property has already been handed over to the plaintiff and the issue remains so far as the plaintiff is concerned of the mesne profit.

4. So far as the defendant - appellant herein is concerned, he has a serious grievance of the possession having been taken over and has also pleaded that plaintiff has compared with the record of the Housing Board and has got the registration done in his favour. He also has a grievance that the plaintiff has no business to ask for the mesne profit or to get the registration done in his favour, when the original allottee was one Mr. Balabhai Gulabdas Patel. It is the consistent stand of the defendant that the original allottee in the year 1970 was Shri. Balabhai Gulabdas Patel, who had given the Power of Attorney to one Shri. Karsanbhai Gulabdas Patel and through whom the original plaintiff - present opponent had claimed the right in the Gujarat Housing Board, and in connivance with the plaintiff had ousted the defendant.

5. This Court has heard at length learned advocate Ms. Bhavika Kotecha who appeared in legal aid for the appellant - defendant and learned advocate Mr. Vasim Mansuri for the present opponent - original plaintiff in this appeal.

6. The Court has also taken into consideration, the authorities which have been relied upon by the parties.

7. On due consideration of the submission of both the sides and the materials which has come on record in the form of the documentary as well as oral evidences of the parties before the trial Court, it can be noticed that the property in question is situated at