( 1 ) PECULIAR facts have given rise to this appeal. It is a classical example of petty landlord-tenant litigation being dragged on for unreasonable length of time, thanks to procedural tools available to unscrupulous litigants and errors of procedure unwittingly committed in law Courts.

( 2 ) THE suit accommodation is residential held by the tenant/defendant/appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ -. The plaintiff/respondent is a practising lawyer. It appears that the defendant/appellant No. 1 was a clerk in the office of the plaintiff's father, who too is an Advocate. Presumably this close affinity, and probably the convenience of the Advocate father and son, persuaded them in permitting their clerk occupying their premises as a tenant some time in the year 1974-75. According to the defendant No. 1, he snapped his office relationship with the plaintiff w. e. f. 30-9-1976. The plaintiff must have expected the defendant No. 1 to vacate the premises simultaneously with his dissociating himself with the plaintiff because that was the prime consideration behind creation of tenancy. However, the erstwhile clerk of the plaintiff did not turn out to be that straight, simpl