Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava
For the Respondent : Shashank Pandey

JUDGMENT : – With the consent of both the parties, this case has been heard and decided finally. Appellants/plaintiffs have filed this miscellaneous civil appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 19-12-2014 passed by the Additional District Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Damoh in civil Appeal No. 1-A/2014, whereby and whereunder the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 18-12-2013 passed by Civil Judge Class 2, Pathariya, District- Damoh in Civil Suit No. 32A/2011 and remanded the matter back to the learned trial Judge.

2. The appellants /plaintiffs filed the suit before the trial Court stating that they have purchased the land, survey number 6/1 area 0.14 dismil on 12-1-1962 situated in Pathariya Distt. Damoh from Pt. Santosh Kumar Hajari by a registered sale deed. Out of which plaintiff's house is built on 10 dismil land. 4 x 20 square feet out of remaining 04 dismil unoccupied land of the plaintiffs was taken by defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 500 for the purpose of running a shop. The defendant is in default of payment of 27 months rent from January 2006 to 31-3-2008. Total Rs. 15,500/- is to be paid by the respondent to the appellants.

3. Despite the registered notice dated 1-2-2008 served by plaintiffs to the defendant to vacate the land and payment of the arrears of rent, the defendant neither made the payment of arrears nor did he pass the vacant possession of land to the plaintiffs, therefore plaintiffs brought the present suit against the defendant for his eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

4. In written statement Respondent/defendant denied the facts of tenancy and alleged that there lies no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the appellants with respect to the suit land. The notice dated 1-2-2008 served by appellants to the respondent is illegal. Janpad panchayat is the owner of the suit land. Defendant has been regularly paying the rent to the Janpad panchayat, therefore respondent is the tenant of Janpad Panchayat. Appellants want to take possession of the suit land from the respondent forcefully. Appellants are not entitled to get possession of the suit land and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court framed five issues and after recording evidence of both the parties, reached to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant is not established but the trial Court has found proved that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit land and the possession of the respondent on the suit land amounts to encroachment, therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to get vacant possession of suit land and directed to the respondent to deliver the possession of suit land to the appellants immediately, Accordingly the trial Court has partly decreed the suit.

6. The respondent/defendant has filed civil appeal before the appellate Court which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2014 challenging the Judgment of the trial Court on various grounds. The Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 19-12-2014 has remanded the matter to the trial Court, inter alia with the following directions;

1. The trial Court to direct the appellant/plaintiff to claim for declaration of title. After the proper valuation of the suit, Court fee be paid accordingly. 2. Trial Court also to direct that the Janpad Panchayat be made party to the suit for the more elucidation of the case. 3. Trial Court to direct both the parties to get the spot inspection done for