CHANDIKA Vs. SUKHNANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal against whom the lower appellate Court has passed a decree also for ejectment from the premises in suit in which the appellant was a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff claimed that the appellant was in default in the matter of payment of rent and that he failed to make the payment in spite of service of a notice of demand within the time allowed by law. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant failed to vacate the premises in spite of being called upon to do so by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) The appellant, inter alia, pleaded that he was not in default and further that the composite notice of demand and one under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was invalid. Both these pleas were accepted by the trial Court which, consequently, dismissed the suit for the relief of ejectment. It, however, decreed the suit for recovery of certain amount found due from the defendant.

(3.) The lower appellate court concluded against the defendant in respect of the aforesaid two pleas and, as noticed above, decreed the suit also in respect of the relief refused by the court. Aggrieved the defendant has come up to the court.