GHASI RAM Vs. JAGAT NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. Plaintiffs instituted the suit on the allegation that the defendants were tenants of a portion of the building and were trespassers in respect of the remaining portion, and that they were liable to be ejected from the portion they were occupying as trespassers and also from the portion they were occupying as tenants because they had defaulted in paying arrears of rent and had made material alterations in the building which had affected adversely the utility of the building.

(2.) THE case of defendants was that they were not the tenants of a portion of the building but of the entire building and the plea that they were trespassers was not a correct plea. The defendants also contended that the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was bad because it was not given to the lessee, who according to them was the partnership firm and not the partners, and also because it was not in respect of the entire premises that were the subject-matter of the tenancy. It was also their case that they had committed no default in payment of rent and had made no material alterations as to make them liable to ejectment.

(3.) DEFENDANTS filed an appeal against the trial court's decree and the plaintiffs filed cross-objection claiming compensation for the period during which the defendants may continue to remain in possession. The lower appellate court agreed with the findings given by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. It allowed the cross-objection and directed the compensation to be paid till the date of ejectment. The defendants have now come to this court challenging the decree of the courts below.