Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant on merits would vehemently contend that he was paying a rent of Rs.800/- and the respondent-plaintiff has denied the payment of rent but, it is their contention that rent was paid up to 31.12.1996 and thereafter, no rent was paid. P.W.1 categorically admitted that no such rent receipts are available. The counsel would vehemently contend that, it is a Gomal land and the defendant constructed the building by taking permission. He would further contend that khatha stands in the name of the defendant i.e., holder khatha. On behalf of defendant, D.W.1 is examined and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.1. The counsel would vehemently contend that, in terms of Ex.P1-trust deed, the Secretary has no power to file a suit without resolution. The property is not dedicated to the trust and trust is not the owner of the property and no resolution has passed authorizing P.W.1 to file the suit. The evidence of P.W.2 is contrary to P.W.1. The entries made in Exs.P8 and P9 has to be proved by examining a person, who prepared the same.

39. The counsel would also vehemently contend that the appellant-defendant has also filed applications before this Court claiming that he is the holder of khatha which was created colluding with BBMP. The counsel would vehemently contend that objections are filed with BBMP and the said objections are pending in view of the regular first appeal being pending before this Court. Ex.P3 is the representation to the BDA for cancellation of holder khatha and the property belongs to the trust. The document of the year 1951 i.e., partition deed is produced. The very contention that the property is not in existence cannot be accepted.

66. Hence, it is clear that the defendant is in occupation from the year 1983 onwards. He also categorically admits that suit schedule property is located in the developed area and he is using the same for his business purpose. The Trial Court has taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 that he is not claiming the ownership but, after filing the suit, an attempt is made to obtain document of holder khatha from BBMP and to place the same before this Court disputing the very title of the plaintiff. In a suit for ejectment, the Court also cannot go into the very title of the suit schedule property and it is pertinent to note that that no reply was given to the notices at Exs.P2 and P4 by the defendant. This Court has also taken note of the admission elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 that he is not claiming ownership in respect of the suit schedule property and also he did not make any enquiry with regard to the suit schedule property but, he is in possession of the same.