Hon ble PARIHAR, J.—Suit for eviction was filed by the landlord against the defendant-appellant on the ground of default and non-user. Subsequently, with the change of ownership of the premises in dispute, the purchaser was substituted as plaintiffs in the suit who are present plaintiff-respondents. The suit was allowed on the ground of default by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2007. The above judgment and decree passed by the trial court has further been affirmed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 27.8.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-appellant.

2. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that admittedly an advance security deposit of Rs. 1 Lac had been received by the original landlord at the time of executing the rent deed. Since advance paid by the defendant-appellant against security for rent was already deposited with the landlord, the arrears of rent could have been adjusted by the landlord and question of default would never arise in such case. While relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Modern Hotel, Gudur vs. K. Radhakrishnaiah & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document