JUDGMENT :

DR. A.K. RATH, J.

1. Since the common question of facts and law are involved in both the appeals, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellant and respondents in both the appeals shall be described as tenant and landlord respectively for the sake of clarity.

3. The tenant as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.10/100/2 of 96/98/04 in the court of the learned C.J.M.-cum-Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jharsuguda for a declaration that he is a tenant under the defendants-landlord, notice dated 10.1.1996 issued by the defendant no.1 is invalid and inoperative and subsequent agreements entered into between him and defendant no.1 from 1.1.1989 are void and not binding on him.

4. The case of the tenant is that he was inducted as a tenant by Rampiyare Tiwari, common ancestor of defendants-landlord, in respect of the suit house on a monthly rent. The rent was increased from time to time and at present the monthly rent is Rs.450/-. Rampiyare Tiwari died in the year 1984 leaving behind the defendants-landlord. Defendant no.1 entered into an agreement on 1st January, 1989 with him in the guise of landlord without disclosing that he was acting on behalf of all the defendants who were the co-sharers of the schedule house property. After receipt of the notice under Sec.106 of the T.P. Act on 15.01.1996, he could know that the defendants-landlord were joint owners of the suit premises. Defendant no.1 falsely represented to be the sole owner thereof. The defendant no.1 without the consent of other co-owners had served a notice on him on 10.01.1996 to vacate the schedule premises by 31.01.1996 on the ground of personal use and occupation. Other rooms were in occupation of the defendant no.1. He did not require the house for bonafide requirement. The notice issued by defendant no.1 was invalid and not binding on him. With this factual scenario, the suit was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

5. The defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant no.1 is that the plaintiff was initially inducted as a tenant by his father in the suit premises on a monthly rent. The rent was enhanced to Rs.475/-. The suit premises originally belonged to his father, Rampiyare Tiwari. After death of his father, there was a family settlement in June, 1985. The suit premises with other properties fell to his share. By virtue of the family settlement, the defendant no.1 became absolute owner of the property. He entered into an agreement with the plaintiff-tenant on 01.01.1989. The plaintiff-tenant admitted the ownership of defendant no.1 over the suit premises. The defendant no.1 being the exclusive owner over the suit premises has every legal right to terminate the tenancy. Accordingly, the tenancy in between the plaintiff-tenant and defendant no.1 was terminated by issuing notice under Sec.106 of the T.P. Act. It was further pleaded that the agreement entered into between him and the tenant was voluntary in nature and there was no question of false representation. The agreement was valid. The defendant nos.2 to 9 filed written statement adopting the written statement filed by the defendant no.1. They admitted the title and ownership of defendant no.1 over the suit premises.

6. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff-tenant filed T.A. No.23 of 1999 before the learned Additional District Judge, Jharsuguda. The same was allowed. The suit was remanded to the learned trial court for de novo trial by framing an additional issue as to whether the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant no.1 alone or under all the defendants. After remand, parties led evidence. Learned trial court held that the status of the plaintiff is a tenant. The tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord. He had also paid the