JUDGMENT

Debabrata Dash, J.

This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Berhampur in R.F.A. No. 21 of 2013 reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Berhampur in Civil Suit No. 56 of 2009.

The trial Court had decreed the suit by confirming the possession of the suit house by the appellant-plaintiffs as tenants and restraining the respondent-defendants from interfering or disturbing the peaceful enjoyment or the plaintiffs with respect of the same, without taking recourse to law in duly evicting the appellant-plaintiffs from the suit house.

The respondent No. 2-defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree had carried the First Appeal; wherein the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have been set aside, resulting dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant as the plaintiffs.

2. 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 trial Court.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs is with the prayer for passing a decree for declaration in their favour confirming possession over the suit house and their tenancy in respect of that as also for permanent injunction directing the defendants and restraining them from interfering or disturbing in any manner with their enjoyment and possession without resorting to the process of law.

It is stated that in or about the year 2006, the defendants had inducted the plaintiffs as tenants in respect of the suit house on monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) and the plaintiffs have been paying the agreed house rent to defendant No. 2 regularly. It is further stated that such induction of the plaintiffs as tenants in respect of the suit house was upon an oral agreement and mutual understanding. It is their case that the defendants had taken a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiffs towards security, refundable at the time of vacation of the suit house without interest. The plaintiffs thus, claim to be in lawful occupation of the suit house as tenants. It is alleged that the defendants have been trying to unlawfully evict the plaintiffs by using force and in that light have been giving threats. For the purpose, it is said that they have managed to get the assurance of the law enforcing agency in view of their political background, when they also have both money and muscle power. Thus, the plaintiffs apprehending eviction at the hand of the defendants without taking recourse to law and without through the legal procedure have filed the suit claiming the reliefs as aforesaid.

4. The defendants in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments have averred that Harekrushna Panda, the father of the plaintiff had approached defendant No. 1 to let out the suit house to him and allow him to occupy the same as tenants on payment of monthly rent. It is also stated that an agreement had come into being between defendant No. 1 and Harekrushna Panda on 10-10-2004 for a period of eleven months. And pursuant to the same he was inducted as a tenant on payment of rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the defendant No. 1 as security, refundable on expiry of the term of the lease. Thus, it is stated that these plaintiffs have never been the tenants in respect of the suit house and it was their father who was a tenant in respect of the suit house at an anterior point of time.

It is next stated that after expiry of eleven months, the period for which Harekrushna had initially been granted with the lease, on further request of Harekrushna, he was merely permitted to stay for some month more. However, Harekrushna thereafter stopped paying rent. So, the possession of Harekrushna from that time onwards is said to be illegal and unlawful and thus the plaintiffs who were remained in possession a