( 1 ) THERE were two suits, one for specific performance of contract by The purchaser and the other for ejectment and arrears of rent by the landlady. The purchaser was the tenant and the vendor was the landlady. The suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed, but the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed Accordingly both the appeals are by one and the same person, but in different capacities of purchaser and the tenant. Similarly the respondent in one appeal is also the respondent in the other appeal, but in different capacities of vendor and the landlady. In this state of affairs and for the sake of convenience, the appellant in both the appeals shall hereafter be also described as the "purchaser-tenant" or as the tenant-purchaser"; and the respondent in the two appeals shall be described as the "vendor-landlady" or as the "landlady-vendor".

( 2 ) THE suit property is a double storeyed house. It was and is owned by the respondent in both the appeals. The first floor of the house was given on rent to the appellant in the two appeals for the purpose of residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 670. 00 with effect from 1-12-1978. The tenancy was from the 1st to the last day of each English Calendar month and the rent was payable on the 1st day of each succeeding tenancy month. Rents till June, 1980 were paid, but rents thereafter were not paid, though the appellant in the two appeals continued and continues to be in possession of the first floor of the house till the date of this judgment. This is the factual position in so far as the tenancy agreement between the parties is concerned.

( 3 ) ON 21-2-1980 the respondent In the two appeals entered into an agreement to sell the entire suit property with the appellant in the appeals for a consideration of Rs. 2,40,000. 00subject to terms and conditions, which were reduced into writing in the form of"agreement of late for a Dwelling House" and also received a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 by cheque and a further sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 in cash, total Rs. 35,000. 00 on the date of execution of the agreement. The balance of sale consideration was payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 10,000. 00 each commencing from April, 1980 with stipulation to execute and register one sale deed in respect of the first floor of the house soon after receipt of the instalments to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000. 00; and to execute and register another sale deed in respect of the remaining portion of the house after receipt of the total Balance amount towards the sale consideration. It was agreed that the vendor-landlady would obtain nil encumbrance certificate, Income-tax clearance certificate and permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority separately for each portion of the house to be sold by two separate sale deeds on two different dates. It was stipulated that the purchaser-tenant would make the "monthly payments promptly and without delay on his part. "it was also Specifically mentioned in the agreement of sale, "that both parties shall agree that time is essence of contract for this agreement". After the date of this agreement, three monthly instalments of Rupees 10,000/-each for the months of April, May and June 1980 were paid by the purchaser-tenant and also received by the vendor-landlady. When the subsequent instalments for the months of July, August, Sept. and Oct. 1980 were not remitted by the purchaser-tenant, she was served with the registered notice dated 10-11-1980 of Sri M. Subbarao, Advocate for and on behalf of the vendor-landlady, repudiating the contract for sale of the house on the ground that the former had committed breach of contract by not remitting monthly instalments from July, 1980, though time was the essence of contract. The amount of Rupees 65,000/- received by the vendor-landlady till the date of notice was simultaneously sent back by cheque No. 007131 dated 10-11-1980 drawn on Andhra Bank, Dwarakanaga r, Visakhapatnam. The purchaser-tenant sen