V. Jagannathan, J.

1. This appeal by the defendant before the trial court in O.S. No. 8258/2003 is directed against the trial court judgment decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for ejectment of the appellant from the suit schedule property.

2. The facts in brief are to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking ejectment of the appellant herein on the ground that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with the landlord D. Purushotham and as per the said agreement dated 22.7.1983, the said landlord had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and having received part of the consideration amount, put the plaintiff in constructive possession of the suit property and directed the appellant herein to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 3,250/- to the plaintiff. The appellant did not pay the rent and therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,17,000/ -was due for three years towards rent and even after the expiry of lease period, the appellant having continued in possession and having become the tenant holding over, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the appellant by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (T.P. Act for short) and further it was the case of the plaintiff that the appellant had sub-let the schedule premises and had violated the tenancy rights and therefore, the suit was filed praying for ejectment of the appellant and also for arrears of rent and damages.

3. The said suit was contested by the appellant herein by taking up the stand that there was no jural relationship between the appellant and the respondent inasmuch as the appellant continued to be the tenant under D. Purushotham the landlord with whom the respondent-plaintiff had entered into an agreement. Therefore, it was contended that the suit itself was not maintainable and the original landlord also was not made a party to the suit. It was also contended by the appellant in his written statement that even after expiry of the lease, there was another lease agreement entered into between the original landlord Purushotham and the appellant for a period of ten years and therefore, the appellant is not liable to be ejected from the suit property as there was no violation of tenancy rights and that apart, the appellant is not aware of the transaction between the respondent-plaintiff and the landlord Purushotham. As the appellant had paid the rents regularly to the original owner, the arrears of rent also did not arise. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The above pleadings led the trial court to frame the following issues:

i) Whether the plaintiff has established that the tenancy is terminated in accordance with law?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the rent of Rs. 3,250/- p.m. for three years ending 1st of October, 2003 amounting to Rs. 1,17,000/- with respect of suit schedule property?

iii) Whether the defendant proves that he had no jural relationship as a tenant with the plaintiff with respect of the suit schedule property?

iv) To what relief or reliefs the parties are entitled?

5. Taking into consideration the evidence let in by the parties and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the trial court answered issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and the third issue was answered in the negative and as a result, the suit of the respondent-plaintiff came to be decreed and the appellant herein was given three months time to handover the vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondent-plaintiff and also to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. It is this judgment and decree of the trial court that has given rise to this appeal by the defendant.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire material on record.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. Dayanand Kumar submitted that the trial court erred in recording a finding that there existed a jural relationship of the