The absence of a lease agreement and denial of tenancy by defendants establishes them as unauthorized occupants, not tenants, under relevant tenancy laws.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

A batch of five connected Regular Second Appeals has come up for disposal.

2. The appellants, in all the five appeals, are represented whereas the respondent in RSA-1061-1990 is represented by a senior counsel. As per the office report, in the remaining appeals, the respondent(s) have been served, however, they remain unrepresented. The issue which arises for consideration is common and identical. In fact, five different first appeals were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, simultaneously on 20.02.1990, by passing separate but identical judgments.

3. The common issue which arises for consideration in all the five appeals is as to "whether an entry in revenue record-jamabandi reflecting possession as 'Gair Marusi' without corresponding entry in the column of rent payable, in cash or kind, is sufficient to declare relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties particularly when both the parties deny the same not only in pleadings but also in evidence?

4. In order to comprehend the issue involved in these cases, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

5. In RSA-1060-1990, the plaintiffs (appellants) filed suit for possession with respect to the land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Rect.19 Killa no.3 in RSA-1061-1990, the appellant filed suit for possession of the land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Rect. No.119, Killa no.3. In RSA-1062-1990, the appellants filed suit for possession with respect to 12 kanals land comprised in Rect. No.37 Killa no.4min 7 min 14 min. In RSA-1063-1990, the appellants filed suit for possession with respect to 16 kanals comprised in Rect. No.103 Killa no.3 and 8. In RSA-1064-1990, the appellants filed a suit for possession with respect to 16 kanals land comprised in Rect. No.37 Killa no.2 and 9.

6. It is the case of the appellants, who were plaintiffs in the trial court, that they are owners of the property and defendants have no right, title or interest in the same who are in illegal possession of the suit land. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to decree for delivery of possession. In all the five appeals, identical stand was taken by the defendants. It was asserted that the different defendants in all the suits were owners in possession for the last 25 years and they have never paid any lease money to anybody. They also claim that the civil court has no jurisdiction. After the plaintiffs were permitted to file replication, the trial court, in RSA-1060-1990 identified the following issues, which require adjudication:-

"1) Whether the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit land as alleged? OPD.

2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

3) Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

4) Whether the defendants have become the owner of the suit land by an adverse possession? OPD.

5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

6) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

7) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct?OPD.

8) Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.

9) Relief."

7. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, in all the five suits, arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs (appellants herein) are owners of the property and defendants have failed to prove that they have perfected their title after the prescribed period by way of adverse possession. Thus, as many as five identical decrees for possession were passed. Five separate appeals were filed, which were decided by the First Appellate Court on the same day. The First Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the appellants are owners of the property and defendants (respondents herein) have failed to prove that they have perfected their title by prescription of time i.e adverse possession. However, the First Appellate Court held that the respondents are