( 1 ) THIS matter has come before us on having been referred to a Bench by one of UK (Ansari J. ). It may also be pointed out that the case was remanded to the District Court, Adilabad, by the High Court after framing an issue to the following effect:"whether the plaintiff has received rents for the months subsequent to April, 1953 and has thereby waived the notice with the intention of treating the lease as subsisting. " After the case was remanded the District Judge recorded the evidence of the parties and has now submitted his finding.

( 2 ) THE facts briefly are that one Kanji instituted a suit against Kapurchand for eviction from shop No. 6 situated in Sirpur, basing the suit on a rent note said to have been executed by the said Kapur Chand on 1-10-1950. It was alleged that the premises was taken on a rental of Rs. 30. 00 per mensem and that the tenancy had expired and that a notice was given to quit on 11-4-1953 and inasmuch as the tenant failed to vacate, the present suit was instituted for ejectment. The tenant who is the appellant before us admitted the execution of the rent deed but said that it related to shop No. 7 and not shop No. 6. With regard to the premises bearing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document