JUDGEMENT :- This is a defendants appeal, who is aggrieved by the decree directing his ejectment from the shops in dispute as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages passed by the trial court and affirmed by the lower appellate court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the decree of the courts below only in so far as it relates to the ejectment of the appellant. His submission in this regard is that the notice (Ext. 1) which was a combined notice demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy of the defendant-appellant, was given only by two out of three lessors and could not, consequently, validly terminate his tenancy. As such, no decree for his ejectment from the shops could be passed.

3. Ext. 1 was sent by Sri H.D. Sharma, Advocate, Nainital to the defendant-appellant on instruction by Madhava Nand and Parma Nand

Chhimwal (plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 and 2). It was a notice, under S.3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 and S.106 of the T.P. Act. It described the two plaintiff-respondents as the owner-land lords of the shops in question and it was mentioned therein that the defendant-appellant was in arrears of rent for the last several months which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document