MEHRUNNISA Vs. VISHAM KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant against whom an order of eviction from the suit premises was passed by the High Court.

(2.) The respondent-landlady became the owner of the suit premises under a registered sale deed dated 31-3-1975. On 12-7-1976, the respondent issued a notice to the tenant terminating the tenancy stating inter alia that the suit premises, a non-residential one, was required for using it as an office for her husband, a practising lawyer. It was also stated that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and has sub-let the premises without written consent of the landlady. However, no action was taken pursuant to the notice dated 12-7-1976. The respondent issued a second notice through lawyer on 9-7-1977 stating that the suit premises was required for her cloth business which she intended to start. Even on the basis of the second notice, no action was taken by the respondent-landlady. A third notice was also issued by the respondent-landlady on 12-10-1979 repeating the same allegations contained in the second notice dated 9-7-1977. This time, the landlady filed a suit for eviction on the basis of the notice issued on 12-10-1979. The grounds for eviction as given in the plaint were that the landlady required the premises for starting a cloth business; that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent for the period from 1-4-1979 to 30-11-1979 and that the tenant has sub-let the premises unauthorisedly.

(3.) The tenant resisted the suit for eviction denying the requirement of the landlady for her new business. It was also denied by the tenant that there was default in payment of rent. The allegation of sub-tenancy was also denied.