Long-standing possession without legal right does not confer tenancy; ownership rights prevail in recovery of possession under the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT:

1. Vide order dated 10th June 2011, the Second Appeal was admitted by this Court. The Appellant before this Court are the Plaintiffs in RCS No.92/2002 seeking possession of the suit premises from the Defendant. The Suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 13th May 2005. As against this, Regular Civil Appeal No.158/2005 was filed by the Defendant, which came to be allowed and the Judgment of the Trial Court was set aside resulting in dismissal of the Suit for possession.

PROCEEDINGS OF TRIAL COURT:

PLAINT:

2. The case of the Plaintiffs is that they had purchased property bearing CTS No.476 and 477 along with the structures standing thereon from the erstwhile owner Harinarayan Shivnarayan Malpani vide three different sale deeds dated 27th March 2000, 28th March 2000 and 29th March 2000. The suit property was described in paragraph No.1(b) of the plaint as room admeasuring 20 x 11 sq. ft. and shed of 13 x 9 sq. ft. situated on CTS No.476 and 477. The Plaintiffs were residing in the said property since long period of time as tenants of the erstwhile owner. About two to three years prior to the purchase of the property the erstwhile owner was residing at some other place and taking disadvantage of his absence the Defendant broke open the lock of the suit property and occupied the same illegally about which the Plaintiffs had informed the erstwhile owners who had approached the police station but his complaint was not taken by the police. After acquiring title to the property, the Plaintiffs asked the Defendant to vacate the suit property which she refused and thus the suit for recovery of possession.

WRITTEN STATEMENT:

3. The Defendant came with the defence that she was tenant of the erstwhile owner in respect of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.12/- per month since the last 17 years having gas connection, ration card and water connection and also that her name was entered into voters list and in the municipal records as tenant. Although rent was paid to the erstwhile owner till the year 1999, no rent receipt was issued. The Plaintiffs were residing in the property as tenants and were aware of the occupation by the Defendant as tenant.

EVIDENCE:

4. The Plaintiffs examined the co-owner of the property who deposed about the purchase of ½ share of the property by the Plaintiffs and the erstwhile owner in support of the execution of the sale deeds to prove their title to the suit property. The sale deeds were produced on record as well as the property extract of CTS No. 476 and 477. The erstwhile owner deposed that there were seven tenant inducted by him and that the Defendant and some other occupants were trespassers. In cross examination the erstwhile owner stated that he was issuing receipts to the tenants and his father was also issuing receipts to tenants.

5. The Defendant examined herself and one Shamsuddin Ali Shaikh in support of her case. She also produced documentary evidence of ration card, gas connection card, communications received at the suit address and assessment extract. In the cross examination DW 1 has admitted that he is not aware of the rent or tenancy of the Defendant or terms and conditions of tenancy.

FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT:

6. The Trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence held that the Plaintiffs have proved title over the suit property. On the issue of trespass, the Trial Court considered the evidence of the erstwhile owner who had deposed about the bona fide tenants of the property and that the Defendant and some other occupants are trespassers and not inducted as tenants. The Trial Court upon consideration of evidence adduced by Defendant held that the evidence only proved the long standing possession in the suit property. As regards the tenancy the Trial Court held that the long standing possession is not sufficient to prove her tenancy as no evidence to establish the same has been led.

FINDING OF THE APPELLATE COURT:

7. The Appellate Court re-apprec