ORDER
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. Heard the parties, perused Lower Court records and with their consent this Appeal is disposed of under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Defendant is appellant, who has lost in both Courts below. Plaintiff filed suit against defendant for recovery of possession of premises, detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint. Plaintiffs claim was that suit quarter was let out to Baidu Ram, who was an employee of Company on a monthly rental of Rs. 38/- excluding electricity and other charges. He died on 18.9.1969.
3. It is relevant to state that defendant Ram Pravin Singh was living with Baidu Ram in the said quarter. On 13.4.1976, plaintiff served a notice dated 6.4.1976 asking him the vacate the suit quarter latest by 30-4.1976. Plaintiff required the same for its use and occupation by other employee of the
Company. Defendant admitted that initially suit quarter was allotted to Baidu Ram. However, he claimed that Baidu Ram sold it to him. Defendant while being examined as DW 1, admitted that no sale deed was executed therefor. DW 1 also accepted not to have paid any rent and/or electricity and other charges to plaintiff. Trial Court held that there was no relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties and defendant was a trespasser. Plaintiff company required the quarter for its other employee. The suit was, therefore, decreed. Defendant filed appeal, which has been dismissed by impugned judgment and decree dated 15.2.2000 and trial Court’s decree has been affirmed. It appears that defendant also claimed himself to be the hair and successor of deceased Baidu Ram. However, nowhere defendant claimed his independent title over the suit premises, rather he admitted ownership of plaintiff over the same. Admittedly Baidu Ram died issue-less and his wife also died. As defendant was living with Baidu Ram from before, he claimed himself to be his successor. Admittedly after death of Baidu Ram defendant continued in occupation of suit quarter, in my opinion Court of appeal below rightly considered whether defendant was out and out a stranger or was connected with Baidu Ram in any manner whatsoever. Atleast it stood admitted that defendant was successor of late Baidu Ram, who was living in the said quarter alongwith him (Baidu Ram) and even after his death, he was continuing in occupation of the same, meaning thereby that even after termination of tenancy of Baidu Ram pursuant to his death, defendant being his successor did not vacate the same. It was rightly held that it was incumbent upon defendant being successor of Baidu Ram to hand-over vacant possession of suit quarter to plaintiff-company immediately after his death. There was relationship of landlord and tenant, in the aforesaid circumstances, between the parties and he was liable to be evicted from suit premises. There is no merit in this Second Appeal, which is concluded by findings of fact. It is dismissed accordingly.
4. Second appeal dismissed.