1. A shop room was taken on rent by the appellant-plaintiff from the respondent-defendant under Ext. Al, and that room was destroyed by accidental fire sometime in 1968. The appellant vacated the premises and started his business in another building. In due course the defendant landlord put up a new structure in the old premises and inducted his son into the new construction. On 1-61971 the appellant instituted the present suit for directing the defendant to let out the newly constructed premises to the plaintiff on the ground that Ext. Al contract still subsists. The action was resisted by the defendant on various grounds inclusive of the contention that Ext. Al was terminated by the voluntary and unqualified surrender of the premises by the plaintiff to the defendant. The courts below substantially accepted the contentions raised by the defendant and non-suited the plaintiff.

2. The averments in the plaint suggest a sort of agreement between the plaintiff on the one part and the defendant on the other to the effect that the defendant was permitted by the plaintiff to put up a new structure on the understanding that the reconstructed premises will again be let out to th