RAMPRASAD HARIPAL Vs. MANOHAR VITHOBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal from the decree of the lower appellate Court granting a decree for ejectment against the appellant. The undisputed facts are these: Under a rent note Exhibit P-l. dated 21-11-1949 the appellant took on lease certain property belonging to the respondent. This tease was for the period beginning from 22-10-49 and ending on 22-10-1950. The property consisted of an open site on which a house was actually standing at the date of the aforesaid lease. It is situate in the town of Ghatanji to which the Rent Control Order of 1949 applied. At the end of the period of lease the respondent served a notice upon the appellant terminating the lease but before serving that notice he did not obtain the permission of the Rent Controller. The appellant did not vacate the site and the house and therefore the respondent instituted a suit for ejectment. In that suit he claimed ejectment of the appellant only from the site and said that the superstructure standing thereon did not belong to him but to the appellant and that the latter should be asked to remove the superstructure while vacating the site.

(2.) THE appellant contended that he was not a lessee merely of the site but was also a lessee of the house standing on that site and that consequently it was obligatory upon the respondent to obtain the permission of the Rent Controller to terminate the lease. ' The appellant's objection prevailed in the trial Court which dismissed the suit but was negatived by the lower appellate Court

(3.) SHRI Tare who appears for the appellant points out that the lower appellate Court granted an application made by the respondent for admitting on record five documents which are said to be rent notes in respect of the same property for previous years. As the appellant was ex parte in the lower appellate Court no objection to their admission could be taken by him. Shri Tare's contention is that in admitting these documents, the lower appellate Court has completely transgressed the provisions of Order 41, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.