The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with Section 106 of the T.P. Act for eviction and the court's reliance on expert opinion in determining the authenticity of a document.

JUDGMENT :

1. The above noted appeal as indicated under Item No. A has been filed by the unsuccessful defendant in Title Suit No. 725 of 2000-I challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Balasore therein decreeing the suit filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as the plaintiffs in part directing the defendant-appellant to pay the arrear house rent at the rate of Rs.600/-per month to the plaintiff-respondent no. 3 and 4 with effect from 4.9.2000 onwards.

The appeal as finds mention under Item No.B has been filed by the same person being unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant in Title Suit No. 903 of 2000-I challenging the judgment and decree passed therein by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Balasore dismissing his suit filed for specific performance of contract against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as the defendant nos. 1 and 2 who have been arraigned as also respondent nos. 3 and 4 as defendant nos. 3 and 4.

2. It is pertinent to state here that the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) has disposed of the above noted suits by a common judgment since the subject matter in both the suits remain the same. At this stage, it may also be noted that the appellant in both the above noted appeals who was the defendant in T.S. No. 725 of 2000 giving rise to the appeal under Item No. B and the plaintiff in T.S. No. 903 of 2000 giving rise to the appeal under Item No. A having died during the pendency of these appeals before this Court, his legal representatives have been substituted who are now pursuing these appeals.

In the above state of affair both the above noted appeals under Item Nos. A and B have been heard together and are thus taken up for disposal by the common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the court below in the Title Suit No. 903 of 2000 as indicated in item no. ‘A’.

4. The defendant nos. 3 and 4 had filed the suit giving rise to the appeal under Item No.B for eviction of the plaintiff and his family members from the suit house with further prayer for directing him to pay the arrear house rent. It is their case that the suit house originally belonged to one Debendranath Panda and after his death, his two sons defendant nos. 1 and 2 succeeded to the same. They sold away the suit house to the defendant nos.3 and 4 under registered sale deed dated 18.11.97 for valuable consideration and had delivered possession to them. Accordingly, the defendant nos. 3 and 4 got the suit house and the land over which it was standing recorded in their names by way of mutation. The plaintiff was a monthly tenant under the vendors i.e. the defendant nos.1 and 2 in respect of the 1st floor of the house. It is stated that after sale, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 intimated it to the plaintiff. It is further stated that before the said sale, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had also intimated the plaintiff either to the vacate the suit house or to purchase the same by paying arrear monthly rent as overdue but that had not been responded to. The case of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 is that the plaintiff being a tenant under their vendors, the defendant nos. 1 and 2, became a tenant under them after their purchase. They served notice upon the plaintiff asking him to vacate 1st floor of the suit house and also to clear up the arrear house rent. In response to the notice dated 27.12.97, the plaintiff agreed to pay the arrear house rent at the rate of Rs.2000/-per month and to vacate the suit house after expiry of one year. The plaintiff acknowledging the defendant nos. 3 and 4 to be the owners of the suit house had also sent house rent by money orders at the rate of Rs. 350/-per month. The defendant nos. 3 and 4 however did not receive the same as it was too low. Thus as the plaintiff did not vacate the 1st floor of the suit house and instead continued to remain in occupation of the same with the status as