S.ALI AHMAD, J.

1. After this appeal was heard, we were informed that similar questions are involved in Second Appeal No. 231 of 1975. Learned counsel appearing in this appeal and Second Appeal No. 231 of 1975, therefore, prayed that the judgement in this appeal may not be delivered before the hearing of Second Appeal No. 231 of 1975 was concluded. We, therefore, directed Second Appeal No. 231 of 1975 to be listed along with this appeal for hearing. Learned counsel appearing in both these two appeals addressed us on the points involved in the cases. Only one point is common to the two appeals. The facts are also entirely different. It is, therefore, desirable to give separate judgements in the two appeals.

2. According to the plaintiff-respondents, they purchased the house from the admitted last owner under a registered sale deed dated 14-5-1956 executed in their favour. At the time of sale, the defendant-appellant was occupying the suit premises as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 25. The defendant-appellant in the demised room was carrying on business under the name and style of Rashtriya Pustak Bhandar. The defendant did not pay a single paisa as rent after the purcha