A tenant cannot contest landlord rights while occupying property, and eviction actions can proceed without the property owner as a party.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J.

1. 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 District Judge, Sundargarh in R.F.A. No.23 of 2015. The Respondents as the Plaintiffs had filed the Civil Suit No.217 of 2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sundargarh seeking eviction of the Appellant (Defendant) and delivery of possession of the suit house and premises as well as realization of arrear house rent. The suit having been dismissed, the Respondents being the Plaintiffs when were non-suited, they had carried the Appeal under section 96 of the Code.

The First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit and the suit of the Respondents (Plaintiffs) has thus been decreed whereby the Appellant (Defendant) has been directed to give delivery of vacant possession of the suit house and premises within a period of three months and pay Rs.4,000/- towards the outstanding house rent dues up-till 15.01.2010 to the Respondents (Plaintiffs) and thereafter the rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month till vacation. The present Second Appeal has thus been filed by the Appellants (Defendants) who have suffered from the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

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. Plaintiffs case is that they had constructed the house over the land under Hal Plot No.598/6 appertaining to 239 in village Patrapali and were staying there with their family. The Plaintiff No.1 was transferred to Kansbahal Post Office. So he kept his house under lock and key and went to Kansbahal with his family and during that period the Defendant was in search of a house to reside by taking the same on rent. He then approached the Plaintiffs to take their house on rent. The Plaintiffs who house was under lock and key agreed to hand over the possession of the said house and premises to the Defendant for his occupation as a tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs.500/- The Defendant agreed to take the house on rent for five years and paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards advance house rent from 15.01.2005. Parties entered into an agreement which was written on a stamp paper. In the said agreement, the Defendant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.400/- per month as house rent and also to pay the electricity charges as per consumption. It was also the agreement that after completion of five years, the Defendant would vacate the suit house and the house rent @ Rs.400/- per month being adjusted from the advance of Rs.20,000/-, the Defendant would pay the balance rent to the Plaintiff. After completion of five years, the Plaintiffs required the house for their own occupation. The Defendant being requested to vacate the same refused to do so. So, serving notice upon the Defendant through their Counsel, when the Plaintiffs did not get any positive response from the side of the Defendants for eviction of the suit house, again a notice asking the Defendant to vacate the suit house and premises was served and thereafter filed the suit seeking the reliefs as afore-stated.

4. The Defendant has admitted in his written statement to have entered into the occupation of the suit house and premises as a tenant under the Plaintiffs on payment of monthly rent of Rs.400/-.