The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Plaintiff must prove the relationship of landlord and tenant to be entitled to the reliefs sought in an eviction suit.

JUDGMENT :

D.Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Berhampur in RFA No.4 of 2010. By the same, the Appeal filed by the present Appellant (Defendant) under section 96 of the Code has been dismissed whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur in Civil Suit No.276 of 2003 filed by the Respondent as the Plaintiff in decreeing the suit directing the Appellant (Defendant) to give vacant possession of the suit premises to the Respondent (Plaintiff) and pay arrear rent @ Rs.1000/- per month with effect from 01.07.2001 till 28.02.2003 and damage @ Rs.2000/- per month with effect from 01.05.2003 till vacation have been confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, 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 of the two shop rooms situated within the premises of his bungalow standing on the main road of Berhampur town. It is stated that in the year 1974, the Defendant occupied the above two shop rooms as a tenant on an agreed monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- with further agreement that he would bear the electric and other charges as per consumption and use. It is stated that he was carrying on commercial activity therein. As the Defendant was known to the family of the Plaintiff and at one point of time, he was working under them as a domestic servant; no such rent deed had been created for the purpose. The Defendant was regularly paying the rent till June, 2001 whereafter he became a defaulter. So on 27.01.2003, the Plaintiff served a notice upon the Defendant terminating the tenancy in terms of and as required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the notice the Defendant was asked to vacate the tenanted premises on or before 01.03.2003 by clearing the arrear rent. The notice being served, the Defendant gave a reply asserting that he had acquired the suit property by virtue of an oral gift as made by Ashalata Devi, who as per the case of the Plaintiff, is his adoptive mother. He thus said to be not in occupation of the premises as a tenant but on his own. The Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for eviction of the Defendant from the shop rooms further claiming the arrear rent and damages from the Defendant.

4. The Defendant in his written statement has stated that Ashalata Devi was the absolute owner of the suit premises. He denied the status of the Plaintiff as the adopted son of said Ashalata. It is his case that one Bhubaneswar Choudhury was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant on payment of rent to Asalata Devi and he was running his business therein in the year 1974. Bhubaneswar Choudury vacated the suit premises in worst condition. Since the Defendant was working under Ashalata as her domestic servant and rendering all such services that too without receiving any salary since the year 1965, Ashalata was pleased to give the suit premises to him to run his business and earn his livelihood. So as agreed, the Defendant repaired those rooms and started his business under the name and style “Rupashree Chitralaya”. He has been paying the electricity charges for the premises since then. It is his specific case that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is further stated that he has acquired title over the suit shop rooms being in open, peaceful and continuous possession for all these years by way of adverse possession.

5. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings having framed six issues has rightly taken up Issue No.4 as to the claim of the Plaintiff for eviction of the Defendant from the suit premises. Upon consideration of the evidence, the issue has been first of all answered in favour of the relationship, then it has a