B. DURGA PRASAD Vs. B. RAMA KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS defendant is admittedly the tenant of the plaintiff -respondent. The latter brought a suit for the arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant from the house. The trial court decreed the suit in part, as regards the arrears of rent, but dismissed it for the ejectment on the ground that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid. The lower appellate court disagreed with this finding and decreed the claim for ejectment also. The defendant comes in appeal to this Court.

(2.) TWO points have been argued in this Court :

(3.) THE present case is distinguishable from the three cases just referred to. There has been no alteration in the law nor has there been any event of the nature which happened in the Nagpur case just referred to. It is still a disputed fact whether or not the plaintiff needs the house in suit to his residence. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the plaintiff has a large family and he is still in need of the house in suit. In these circumstances, the subsequent event, even if it has actually happened, cannot be taken into consideration in the decision of this appeal. In fact, I am inclined to the view that this subsequent event cannot re impose a bar against the plaintiff which was removed by the grant of permission to him by the District Magistrate. The bar once removed cannot be re -imposed.