The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the landlord and tenant relationship, default in rent payment, and rejection of the plea of an agreement of sale and encroachment by the defendants.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants.

2. Perused the record.

3. The defendants/tenants-appellants feel aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for their eviction from the premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation which has been affirmed by the first Appellate Court.

4. The suit giving rise to this appeal had been filed on 20-6-1984. In Paragraph 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff had come up with the clear cut allegation that a piece of land having an area of 10 bighas had been allotted to the plaintiff which consisted of portions of survey plot No. 419 and survey plot No. 826. On the aforesaid land which had been allotted by the State Government to the plaintiff, several residential quarters had been constructed; out of which quarter No. 4 had been let out to Ram Kinkar, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The tenancy which had been granted to Ram Kinkar had devolved upon his widow, Smt. Vimla Devi, who had been impleaded as the defendant No. 1 and his son, Vijay Kumar, who had been impleaded as the defendant No. 2 in the suit. The plaintiff in support of his case about there being a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Ram Kinkar had produced the rent note, exhibit P-4, which had been executed by Ram Kinkar in respect of the quarter No. 4. The premises in dispute had been let out to Ram Kinkar at a rental of Rs. 7/- per month.

5. The plaintiff had also asserted that during the currency of the tenancy, the defendants had encroached upon certain area of the land belonging to the plaintiff and had increased the area of the premises under their tenancy. This was done without any jurisdiction or authority. The decree for eviction of the defendants was sought for even for the aforesaid area.

6. It may be noticed that the area of survey plot No. 419 has been shown in the relevant khasras as 4 bighas 12 biswas and the area of survey plot No. 826/1 however shown as 9 bighas 5 biswas. So far as the survey plot No. 826 is concerned, it has been shown as 27 bighas 12 biswas.

7. The defendants had contested the suit denying the plaint allegations. Smt. Vimla Devi, the widow of Ram Kinkar had also set up a plea that she had been granted a patta by the State Government on 10-8-1984 in respect of a total area of 30 sq. mtrs., out of the survey plot No. 826/1. The length and width of this plot was shown to be 5 mtrs. in North, 6 mtrs. in East, 5 mtrs. towards South and 6 mtrs. towards West.

8. The defendants claimed that in view of the settlement of the land covering the said patta, no decree for eviction could be passed against them.

9. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have concurrently found that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Ram Kinkar, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants.

10. It is, therefore, obvious that the relationship of landlord and tenant continued to exist between the plaintiff and the defendants on the date of the suit.

11. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have also concurrently found that the defendants were defaulters in the payment of the rent and a notice had been duly served with the notice as required under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is not in dispute that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not attracted to the premises in dispute.

12. Both the Courts below have further concurrently negatived the plea of the defendants about there being an agreement of sale in respect of the land in dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants and the story about the same has been found to be false. It was further found that the defendants had not been able to establish that any part of the premises in dispute including the portion which had been claimed to have been encroached upon formed part of the area whic