A suit for possession remains maintainable even if the landlord-tenant relationship is not proven, while claims of adverse possession require proof of hostile possession, which was not established.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 in this Second Appeal were the Defendants before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 and Appellants and Respondent No.5 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.101 of 2023.

The predecessors of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2nd appeal i.e. Prahallad Chandra Palai was the sole Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019.

When during the pendency of the suit vide C.S. No.07 of 2019, the sole Plaintiff Prahallad Chandra Palai expired, then, his LRs. i.e. Respondent Nos.1 o 4 in this 2^nd appeal were substituted in his place and they were Respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A No.101 of 2023.

3. According to the suit of the Plaintiffs (Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2^nd appeal) vide C.S. No.07 of 2019 before the learned Trial Court against the Defendants (Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 to 8 in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for eviction, realization of arrear rent, in alternative declaration of title and recovery of possession.

4. As per the case of the Plaintiff, the suit properties described in Schedule of the Plaint were his ancestral properties. As per the decree passed in a suit for partition vide C.S. No.470 of 2000 between Plaintiff Prahallad Chandra Palai and his co-sharers, the suit properties had fallen in his share. As such, Plaintiff became the exclusive owner. R.o.R. of the suit properties was prepared in his name exclusively on the basis of the above compromise decree passed in the suit vide C.S. No.470 of 2000.

He (Plaintiff) constructed houses on the suit properties and let out the said houses on monthly rent to Gangadhar Mohapatra (predecessor of the Defendants). Initially monthly rent thereof was Rs.100/-. Subsequently, the said monthly rent increased gradually. When, Gangadhar Mohapatra expired, then, his successors i.e. Defendants continued as tenants in the said houses on the suit properties under the Plaintiff like Gangadhar Mohapatra. In the year 2018, monthly rent thereof was Rs.6500/-. After April, 2018, the Defendants did not pay rent of the suit houses to the Plaintiff, for which, Plaintiff asked for the same, but, they (Defendants) denied to pay the rent, instead of which, used filthy languages against him (Plaintiff). For which, the Plaintiff issued an Advocate notice through registered post on dated 16.11.2018 to the Defendants determining their tenancy and requested to vacate the houses after paying arrear rents.

Out of the Defendants, only Defendant No.4 received the said notice, but, other Defendants avoided to receive the same. The Defendants in response to the said notice dated 16.11.2018 of the Plaintiff replied through their Advocate Shri Purna Chandra Mohanty taking false pleas that, their predecessor Gangadhar Mohapatra was residing in the houses on the suit properties since 1932 and he had constructed pucca house and asbestos houses on the same. The father of Plaintiff i.e. Narayan Palai had taken money from Gangadhar Mohapatra to sell the suit properties, but, did not execute the sale deed during his lifetime. For which, they (Defendants) being the successors of the Gangadhar Mohapatra, they are the owners of the suit properties, in which, the Plaintiff has no interest an