- (1.) THE present appeal by The Court, however, dismissed the suit for ejectment and decreed it only for the re covery of arrears of rent. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had made additions and alterations in the suit premises after the expiry of the period of lease inasmuch as he installed a paddy crushing machine and kolhu without any prior permission of the plain tiff. The defendant thus used the premises for inconsistent purposes. During the pen dency of the suit, he has replaced the kolhu by an oil expeller on 10th April, 1962. Ac cording to the plaintiff, the vibration of the additional machines adversely affected the premises and the same amounted to nuisance. The plaintiff, after serving a notice of ter mination on the defendant, filed the present suit.
(2.) THE claim of the plaintiff was re sisted by the defendant. His stand was that the additions and alterations were made at a cost of Rs. 1,0001- with the consent of the plaintiff, who had agreed to adjust the said amount in the rent, but he did not adjust the amount and had falsely instituted the suit. It was further alleged that the suit premises was taken for manufacturing purposes and so the defendant was legally entitled to install the paddy crushing machine and the Kolhu. The notice served by the plaintiff on the defendant was invalid. The trial Court came to the con clusion that though the premises was let out for manufacturing purposes, a restriction was placed in the lease deed to run only flour mill and cotton machine and the installation of the rice crushing machine, kolhu and oil the plaintiff arises out of a suit for ejectment expeller was inconsistent with the use of the from the ahata in suit after demolition of the constructions made by the defendant. The premises for which it had been let out. It was also alleged that the additions and alter disputed ahata is owned by the plaintiff options in the suit premises did not cause any appellant. By a registered deed of agreement dated IIth January, 1952, the plaintiff let out the said ahata on an annual rent of Rs. 150.00to the defendant for a period of three years, commencing from 12th November, 1951 to substantial damage nor did they create any nuisance and that the tenancy of the defen dant had. been validly terminated by the plaintiff. On these findings, the suit was decreed by the trial Court.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal. It appears that during the pen dency of the appeal, the defendant moved an application on 12th February, 1964, for amend ment of the written statement to incorporate the plea that the suit was barred under O 2, R, 2, Civil P. C. The application was hotly contested by the plaintiff, but the Additional Civil Judge allowed the application and re manded the case to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh. The plaintiff came up in ap peal to this Court against that order, which was allowed by this Court and the order of remand was set aside and the Additional Civil Judge was directed to decide the appeal on merits. Consequently, the Additional Civil Judge heard the appeal and decided it on merits. He allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The learned Additional Civil Judge took the view that the defendant continued in posses sion even after the expiry of the stipulated period of the lease deed on payment of rent, which was accepted by the landlord and, therefore, it was a case of holding over with in the meaning of Section 116 of the Trans fer of Property Act. Accordingly, he held that the defendant's tenancy continued on the terms contained in the lease deed dated IIth January, 1952. The plaintiff has now come up in second appeal to this Court.;