The plaintiff, as the new landlord, was entitled to eviction as the defendant failed to prove continued tenancy under the plaintiff's vendor. The defendant's defenses were found to be without merit.

JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed questioning the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in RFA No. 30 of 2015. By the said judgment and decree in the first appeal, the learned lower appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in C.S. No. 420/224 of 2010-11 by affirming all the findings recorded therein. The suit filed by the respondent as plaintiff which had been decreed by the trial court directing the appellant-defendant to vacate the suit shop room and to hand over possession of the same to the respondent-plaintiff as also to pay the arrear rent and damage as indicated therein having thus held the field, in the present second appeal, all those are challenged by the unsuccessful defendant as the appellant.

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. Plaintiff’s case is that he is the owner in possession of the land over which the suit shop room with other rooms stand. He had purchased the same from one Sri Lohit Dash by registered sale deed dated 18.5.2007 for valuable consideration. Pursuant to the same, the land has been mutated in the name of the plaintiff under separate khata. The possession of the suit land and houses standing over there having been handed over by the vendor namely, Lohit, the plaintiff has taken over the same this is said to be with the knowledge of all the tenants including the defendant in occupation of different rooms standing over the suit land. It is stated that all the tenants then in occupation of different rooms standing in a row on the said land accepted and acknowledged the plaintiff as their land lord and thus continued to remain under him as before as they were under said Lohit from whom the plaintiff purchased the property in question.

It has stated that after purchase of the suit land, the plaintiff went on receiving the monthly rent as agreed upon from the tenants and they continued to pay accordingly. The defendant being one of the tenants paid him the rent @ Rs.660/- per month from the month of June 2007 to November 2007 and from December 2007 to May 2009 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. It is further stated that necessary receipts to that effect had been prepared at the time of tendering of the rent, the plaintiff and the defendant have appended their signatures in token of receipt and payment respectively. It is next stated that in the month of June 2009, the plaintiff asked the defendant to come forward to execute an agreement with him in respect of his continuance of tenancy in so far as the suit shop room is concerned. It is stated that this proposal being given, the defendant readily replied to be having no intention to continue with the occupation and so told that he would be vacating the suit shop room. But surprisingly later he changed his mind. After making such false promise so as to avoid to execute the agreement, he is said to have adopted to dilatory tactics. He then stopped paying monthly rent to the plaintiff for such occupation of the suit shop room.

The plaintiff thus finding no other alternative served a notice upon the defendant demanding vacant possession of the suit shop room and calling upon him to leave the possession of the suit shop room by paying arrear rent etc. The response then came that the defendant was all along a tenant under Lohit Das (who is the vendor of the plaintiff). He has never been a tenant under the plaintiff. In the reply, the defendant thus disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself in so far as the suit shop room is concerned. In other words, the defendant advanced his defence in reply to have never recognized the plaintiff to be having any nexus with the occupation of the defendant in respect of suit shop room, admitting only to the extent that he had be