Ramesh vs Thakur Kamal Singh

Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant on the question of admission of this second appeal, it transpires that an Original Suit No. 232/2008 was initiated by Thakur Kamal Kumar Singh on 11.8.2008 against the second appellant Ramesh for recovery of possession as well as arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- and the mesne profit @ Rs. 1500/- per month till the property is restored to the possession of the plaintiff.

It was pleaded that Thakur Kamal Kumar Singh purchased a plot of land on 11.9.1985 and made construction thereon in 2007. Thereafter he rented out the property, in question, on 26.6.2007 @ Rs. 1500/- per month by way of writing the rent deed. But after few months, the defendant started to deny the title of the plaintiff inasmuch as moving the application to the City Magistrate in this regard. Therefore, the plaintiff sent the notice dated 1.7.2008 terminating the tenancy of the defendant because on account of the new construction, the Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. Such suit was decreed on 26.5.2012, whereagainst the Civil Appeal No. 81/2013 was preferred and it was permitted to be adjudicated after the lapse of five years and thus such

appeal was dismissed on 20.5.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.

It is the contention of learned Counsel for the defendant appellant that the first appellate court has decided as many as six issues in one go. Having perused the impugned judgment, it is evident that out of six issues, one pertains to the court fees, while another issue is regarding the relief. So, virtually the factual issues were only confined to issue nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and out of these, the predominant issue was whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property or not.

Plaintiff has proved his ownership by way of producing the original sale deed, whereas the defendant has pleaded his ownership by way of only oral averments. The notice terminating the tenancy has also been proved by the plaintiff.

I think no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. It is hereby dismissed.