ORDER :- The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 265 of 1966 against the defendants for recovering possession of the suit premises on the grounds that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the original tenants, had unlawfully sub-let a part of the suit premises to the defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6, that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had constructed permanent structures in the suit premises without obtaining the permission of the plaintiffs in writing, that the defendants had committed waste in the suit premises, that the plainiffs require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their occupation and that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had split up the original tenancy in two parts. The plaintiffs also pleaded that the defendants had been denying the plaintiffs' title and have not been observing the terms of the tenancy.

2. The defendants in their turn challenged the validity of the statutory notice served by the plaintiffs upon the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

3. The learned Trial Judge held that the statutory notice served by the plaintiffs upon the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was valid. So far as unlawful subletting was concerned, he negatived the plaintiffs' allegation in that beh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document