Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The first question is whether the relationship between the defendant's father and plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest was that of landlord and tenant, and secondly--assuming that he was tenant whether his tenancy rights devolved on the defendant after his death. It is common ground between counsel that if the defendant did not inherit any tenancy rights, his possession was that of trespasser unless he accepted the relationship of landlord and tenant by a fresh agreement. It was conceded by Mr. Radha Krishna that it was not open to him to challenge in second appeal the finding of the appellate court that the defendant had paid no rent and entered into no fresh agreement with the landlord.

8. The agreement was made on or about 7-10-1915. The oral lease expired on 24-10-1916, but the tenant continued in possession, and under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act he became a tenant from month to month. He died in 1922 and on his death the rights under the monthly tenancy devolved on his son, the present defendant. Raman Lal v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1950 All 583 and Anwarali v. Jamini Lal Roy, AIR 1940 Cal 89. Thus the defendant continued in possession not as a trespasser but a tenant. No question of adverse possession arises.