The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory splitting of tenancy and the rights of lessors and transferees under the Transfer of Property Act.

N.P. Gupta, J.-These two appeals have been filed by the defendant, tenant, against the different Judgment s and decrees passed by the learned Courts below in two different suits, instituted by two different landlords, and decreeing both the suits for eviction, and also determining standard rent in favour of both the landlords.

2. In my view, the totality of circumstances of both the cases is such, that I think it appropriate to decide both the appeals by this common Judgment .

3. Appeal No. 50 arises out of the suit instituted by Sri Chand, while Appeal No. 49 arises out of the suit instituted by Smt. Madan Kanwar. The two plaintiffs are husband and wife respectively.

4. The facts of the case are, that the suit premises earlier belonged to one owner being Milap Chand, of whom the defendant appellant was a tenant, at a monthly rent of Rs. 550/-. This property was sold by Milap Chand to the two plaintiffs, by executing two different sale-deeds; one in favour of each of the plaintiffs, on 12.08.1961. Thus, each respective purchaser plaintiff became owner of respective portion of the suit premises, while the appellant was tenant in the entire premises, under one tenancy. The husband filed the suit for eviction, on the ground of default, and reasonable and bona fide necessity, alleging inter alia, that he lives in Singhpol, which is located at a height, and he feels difficulty in coming and going from there. It is also alleged, that the plaintiff is carrying on business as a tenant, in the shop of late Mohan Lal Vyas, which tenanted shop is insufficient for his business, apart from the fact that the landlord is pressing for eviction, while in the suit shop (shop belonging to husband), there is space measuring 18 ft. and the plaintiff would use remaining part of the shop for residence, for himself and his family, and use the other part of the shop including the shop situated in the north, which has been purchased by his wife, by making necessary additions and alterations for carrying on his business. The plaintiff alleged to be above 60 years of age, and claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 275/-per month (half of the rent of the total premises) and prayed for determining this, amount as standard rent also.

5. The other suit was filed by the wife, also alleging identical facts, including requirement of the suit premises for herself and for her husband, for carrying on business, and making identical averments for inconvenient location of the residence, and about using the premises after making necessary additions and alterations.

6. Thus, since the two plaintiffs want to use the premises collectively, by making necessary additions and alterations, for residence and shop, and the premises being one, under one tenancy, having been purchased by the husband and wife, in different portions, under different sale deeds, I think it appropriate to decide these appeals by this common Judgment .

7. The defendant contested both the suits, alleging that the landlord was not entitled to bifurcate or split the tenancy, by selling the premises in portions to two different persons, and unless the original landlord gives him notice, or the plaintiff proves the valid sale-deed, the plaintiff does not become landlord. It was also contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to bifurcate the rent, nor was the seller so entitled to fix the rent. It was also contended that the seller had asked the defendant to increase the rent, and that he wants to sale the shop also, because he wants to become an; Ascetic, whereupon the defendant offered to purchase the premises on appropriate market price, and in the alternative also offered to increase the rent, but then the landlord did not respond, and had learnt, that he became Ascetic. It was also alleged that rent had been paid by the defendant upto July, 1996 and thereafter nobody came to demand rent. However, notice was received from the plaintiff on 04.04.1997, which was replied. The allegations of default