JUDGMENT :- The defendant tenant has appealed from a concurrent decree of his eviction from a house on the finding that he defaulted in payment of rent despite notice of demand having been served upon him and his tenancy having been terminated by service of a notice as required by law.

2. Admittedly the defendant appellant was the tenant of the plaintiff respondent in the house in suit. By a notice dated 4-4-1965 served on the defendant on 7-4-1965 the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the house and to clear off all the arrears of rent within one month after the receipt thereof. The defendant did not comply with the notice, hence the suit.

3. Amongst the pleas set up in defence was that the plaintiff was not the landlord of the defendant and that the notice to quit for terminating the tenancy was not in accordance with law.

4. Both the courts below found on the evidence on record that the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff who got the house in suit as a gift from her father and that the notice terminating the tenancy was valid and effective. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

5. I have heard Sri R. M. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the defendant appellant, in suppo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document