- (1.) The Plaintiff Respondent no 3 filed suit against the tenant Petitioner on three grounds; firstly, the Defendant has committed default in payment of rent, secondly the Defendant has made alteration in the building under tenancy, and, thirdly, the Defendant has denied the title of the landlord.
(2.) In Writ Petition No 5407 of 1979 filed by the present tenant against the orders of the court below decreeing the suit for ejectment, only on the ground of denial of title, the learned Single Judge set aside the findings and the orders of the court below and held that there is no finding by either of the two courts below whether the Plaintiff had not waived his right of re-entry or condoned the conduct of the tenant. The learned Judge held that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord and the other findings recorded by both the courts below were set aside and the case was remanded for fresh decision only on the issue whether the landlord has not waived his right of re-entry or condoned the conduct of the tenant within meaning of Clause (f) of Section 20(2) of the Act.
(3.) As regards the first part of this Sub-clause it was held that the conclusion of the courts below that the Petitioner had denied the title of the landlord is correct. The issue whether the suit was incompetent for want of notice under Section 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, the trial court was directed to give a finding as to whether notice under Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act had been given by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and if not, what is the effect of that omission on the maintainability of the suit.;