( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The material facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under: one M. Satyanarayana was the owner of the suit property. He agreed to sell it to the plaintiff. That agreement led to the suit for specific performance by the plaintiff against the said Satyanaryana. The litigation went right upto the Supreme Court and ultimately a decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court rendered its decision on 7-8-1965.

( 2 ) ONE Tuljaram Neemkar was the original tenant of the suit premises. The defendant who is his cousin took over from him the business which was run in the suit premises and continued it there. The plaintiff recognised him as his tenant. In 1968 the plaintiff filed eviction petition against the defendant before the Rent Controller. It was R. C. 97 of 68. There was a compromise between the parties in that eviction petition and the defendant continued to be in possession of the suit premises. The present suit, O. S. 1474/73, has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for eviction on the ground that the d