SURAJ PRASAD Vs. KUSUMLATA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant tenant has appealed from a concurrent decree of his eviction from a house on the finding that he defaulted in payment of rent despite notice of demand having been served upon him and his tenancy having been terminated by service of a notice as required by law.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the defendant appel lant was the tenant of the plaintiff respon dent in the house in suit. By a notice dated 4-4-1965 served on the defendant on 7-4-1965 the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the house and to clear off all the arrears of rent within one month after the receipt thereof. The defendant did not comply with the notice, hence the suit.

(3.) BOTH the courts below found on the evidence on record that the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff who got the house in suit as a gift from her father and that the notice terminating the tenancy was valid and effective. The suit of the plain tiff was decreed.