Tenant cannot be evicted without the landlord proving lawful title, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interrupted unless perverse.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 09.09.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.05 of 2018 upholding the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gomati District, Udaipur dated 07.06.2018 in Title Suit No.02 of 2000.

2. The fact of the case is brief are that one Lt. Nishi Kanta Sarkar, the father of the respondent herein was the possessor of the suit land from 1955 and he made some construction therein. After his death, the respondent started possessing the same and in the year 1984, the appellant entered into the possession of the suit premises based on a registered lease deed for a period of two years, where he started a sweet-meet shop which was renewed in the year 1989 for another two years. After the expiry of the said lease period, it was further extended up to 08.08.1991, for two years. Thereafter on expiry of the lease period, the appellant continued the possession of the said premises ignoring the request of the respondent to execute a fresh lease deed for the same. The same premises required some maintenance and the respondent requested him to vacate the premises for the purpose of repairing, but of no result. So, after serving a legal notice to vacate the said premises, and to pay the unpaid rent, he filed the suit for eviction against the appellant.

3. After receiving the summons from the learned Court, the appellant appeared therein and contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. It was the contention of the appellant that he has been running the said sweet-meet shop on C.S. Plot No.1528 as a tenant of Radha Ballav Sutradhar since Aswin 1400 BS. The respondent never possessed any portion of the said C.S. Plot No.1528 and never made any construction on that land. It was further claimed by the appellant that construction made within the C.S. Plot No.1528 was of Shri Radha Ballav Sutradhar and from 1391 BS to 1400 BS, he was a tenant of the respondent in a temporary shed constructed by him to the eastern side of C.S. Plot No.1529. The said plot is lying to the southern boundary of the C.S. Plot No.1528 and during that period of time, some registered instruments were created between the appellant and the respondent. He further denied having knowledge regarding the contents of these registered instruments. He further claimed that in the middle part of 1399 B.S., the respondent requested him to vacate the 'dokan' shed. Accordingly, in the last part of 1400 B.S. he vacated the said premises and handed over the possession to the respondent. Thereafter, he entered into possession of the premises on 12.09.1993 as a tenant of Radha Bhallav Sutradhar and started running his business therein. He further stated that the boundary of the suit land mentioned in the plaint was not correct and prayed for disposal of the suit.

4. Based on the evidence of the parties, the learned Court below after completion of the trial, passed the judgment on 07.06.2018. The Court below decreed the suit directing the respondent therein to handover the possession of the suit land to the appellant and also to pay rent at the rate of Rs.300 per month along with damaged amounting to Rs.29 per day from the month of Jaisthya 1406 till vacation of the suit premises.

5. The appellant felt seriously aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial Court below and challenged the same by filing an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura which was numbered as T.A.05 of 2018. The learned Appellat