A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title, and eviction can be granted based on established tenancy rights, even if the title is not conclusively proven.

ORDER :

Ashok Kumar Jain, J.

1. Instant second appeal is preferred aggrieved from judgment dated 15.10.2008 in civil regular appeal No.06/2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, wherein an appeal preferred by respondent defendant aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 08.01.2008 in civil suit No.185/1982 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaipur West was allowed and decree for eviction in favour of present appellant plaintiff was set aside.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant second appeal indicate that a civil suit for eviction, arrears of rent and perpetual injunction was filed by Mandir Girdhari Ji Trust and 6 other persons (total seven) against Bhanwar Lal, Raghunath, Ghanshyam, Hanuman and Prakash (total five) on 26.06.1982. During pendency of civil suit a joint written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 5. During pendency of this civil suit defendants Hanuman, Ghanshyam and Prakash entered into compromise with original plaintiffs and this compromise was exhibited as Ex.4. As per compromise, defendant Nos. 3 to 5 had acknowledged the tenancy and handed over partial possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The suit was continued against Bhanwar Lal and Ragunath.

3. After attestation of compromise between original 7 plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3 to 5 on 05.07.1989, a prayer is made to continue civil suit against defendant No.1 Bhanwar Lal and No.2 Raghunath. During pendency of civil suit, an application under Order XXII rule 10 CPC was filed on 08.12.1995 to substitute and implead Navratan Lal Agarwal in place of original plaintiffs, who acquired the suit property by way of registered sale deed on 18.08.1988. The trial court has allowed the application on 16.09.1996 and permitted present appellant Navratan (purchaser during pendency of civil suit) to continue the civil suit.

4. The plaintiff appellant examined five witnesses and eighteen documents were exhibited whereas defendant examined DW-1 Ragunath in his defence. After considering the material on record the civil suit was initially decreed for eviction on 12.04.2007 against the respondent defendant. Aggrieved from aforesaid a civil regular appeal was filed before learned District Judge and same was transferred to learned Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur and same was decided on 12.09.2007 as civil regular appeal No. 38/2007. The appellate court has set aside the judgment dated 12.04.2007 and remanded the suit back to the trial court for examination of witnesses PW-1 (Ramavtar) and to decide the civil suit afresh.

5. The trial court after complying with the order has again decreed the civil suit on 08.01.2008 and directed the defendant No.1 and 2 to hand over the possession of the suit property and further directed payment of rent including arrears. Aggrieved from the aforesaid a regular appeal was preferred and same was decided on 15.10.2008 as civil regular appeal No.06/2008 by learned Additional District Judge No.9 Jaipur City and the appeal was allowed and judgment and decree dated 08.01.2008 was set aside, hence this appeal.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for appellant submitted that the suit property was initially given on rent to Gulji, father of respondent and as a legal heir of Gulji the respondent with others LRs of Gulji inherited possession of the suit property as tenant. He further submitted that initially the suit was filed against 5 legal heirs of Gulji and three of them acknowledged the tenancy inherited from Gulji and vacated the suit premises partially. He also submitted that brother of respondent defendant Hanuman who was also a defendant before was examined as PW-4 before the trial court, wherein he supported the statement of plaintiff that Gulji was original tenant on the suit premises and after his death his legal heirs inherited the right of tenancy over the suit pr