CHHITARMAL Vs. RAMABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant/appellant has come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by the decree of the Courts below directing his ejectment from the suit premises.

(2.) NO detailed statement of the facts is necessary inasmuch as having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to be remanded for decision afresh by the lower appellate Court and hence the facts necessary in that regard need only be stated.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that availability of ground under clauses (a) was not even prima facie made out inasmuch as all the arrears of rent were deposited in accordance with section 13 of the Act and even if cause of action was available to the plaintiff on the date of the suit, the defendant/appellant should have been allowed protection against eviction u/s. 12 (3). This aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by the lower appellate Court. In any case, the first appeal raised questions worth being heard and the dismissal at admission stage was in undue haste.