1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The appellant herein was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The suit was for ejectment and damages for use and occupation of the suit property. The plaintiff was the lessor and defendant no.1 was the tenant in respect of the suit premises, which was non-residential, for several decades. Defendant no.2 was said to be an unauthorised sub-lessee in occupation of the suit property.

4. There was no written agreement in respect of the lease. It was treated as a tenancy from month to month. The tenancy was terminated by a notice, in writing, dated 6.9.2000. The suit was decreed directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property, however, the plaintiff was not granted damages but only the agreed rent upto the date of delivery of possession.

5. Defendant No.1, who had contested the suit, preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court, against the said judgment. The first appellate Court has held that:

a) There was no documentary or oral evidence as regards the terms of the lease. And therefore, in the absence of