- (1.) When this appeal was called out for hearing the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant submitted that substantial questions of law have not been formulated in this appeal as yet and, accordingly, such formulation is necessary. Having heard the learned Advocate for the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appeal should be heard on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether or not the learned lower Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal upon finding that the notice to quit served upon the defendant was valid in law when according to the defendant, the defendant was a tenant in respect of one room and the other room had been allegedly constructed by the defendant. (ii) Whether or not the learned lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the notice to quit is a valid one when according to the defendant, the defendant was a tenant in respect of one room but the notice describes two rooms. (iii) Whether or not the learned lower Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal when according to the defendant there are other coowners (other than the plaintiffs) of the suit property.
(2.) After formulation of the aforesaid substantial questions of law, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant proceeded to make his submissions on the merits of the appeal.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the appellant made and completed his submissions today. The learned Advocate for the respondents made and completed his submissions today and the learned Advocate for the appellant made his submissions in reply. Hearing is concluded.;