R.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the Defendant against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar, dated December 12, 1979.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the Defendant from the property in dispute. It was contested by the Defendant inter alia on the ground that he was not a tenant under the Plaintiff, that a proper notice under Section 06(sic) of the Transfer of Property Act was not served upon him, that he had acquired permanent tenancy rights in the property, that he had raised construction on it at a cost of Rs. 5,000/ - and that the Plaintiff was estopped from terminating the tenancy. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues: - Whether Defendant has sublet the shop in dispute to Muni Lal Vinod Kumar, is so its effect ? 2. Whether a valid notice under Section 106(sic) of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the Defendant ? A. Whether the Plaintiff requires the shop in dispute for his own use bona fide? Whether the suit is time barred ? Whether the Defendant is the tenant of Ganesh Dass Plaintiff? Whether suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties ? 7. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? 8. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? 9. Relief The trial Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiff. The Defendant went up in appeal before the District Judge. Rup Nagar He, on February 9, 1978 set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded, the case after framing the following three additional issues: - 1 Whether the Defendant has acquired permanent tenancy rights in property in dispute ? 2 Whether the Defendant has iised(sic) constructions in the property in suit at costs of Rs. 5,000/ as alleged in para No. 6 of the written rutement.(sic) If so, its effect ? Whether the Plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from terminating tenancy of Defendant ? He also held that some documents had not been exhibited property. 3. After the remand, the learned trial Court decide the additional issues but did not decide the earlier issues framed by it and again decreed the suit. The Defendant went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. He has come up in second appeal against that decree to this Court.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned District Judge vide order dated February 9, 198(sic) had set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case to it for deciding the matter afresh. He further submits that he had framed three additional issues and the trial Court had to decide the case again on the old as well as the additional issues. According to the counsel, the barred Court did not decide the old issues but disposed of the suit by deciding only the additional issues framed by the District Judge.;