Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is by the tenant (defendant No. 1) - a firm and its managing partner and is directed against a decree of eviction granted by the trial Court and upheld in appeal by the District Judge and the High Court.
(2.) Eviction from the premises was asked for on three grounds:(1) personal necessity, (2) sub-letting to respondent No. 2 and (3) material damage caused to the building by the sub-tenant. All the Courts have negatived the plea of personal necessity as also sub-letting as valid grounds for eviction but the suit has been decreed on the third ground.
(3.) It has been found as a fact that in a compromise between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, the tenant was given liberty to induct a sub-tenant at its discretion. Defendant No. 2 was inducted by the tenant in terms of the authority in the compromise terms but as the High Court has clearly found there was no privity between the landlord and the sub-tenant. The Courts below had relied upon the tenant's suit against the subtenant on the ground of damage to the premises on various scores and the plaint of the suit (Ext. 3) was utilised as containing an admission in that regard.;