- (1.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings, the specified landlord has been able to get the first floor of the house vacated from the tenant under the consent order on 3-8-1988. The specified landlord is also in possession of a room on the ground floor besides a room on the second floor. The tenant is in possession of a room on the second floor and his ejectment is also sought on the ground that the landlord is a specified landlord.
(2.) THE trial Court ordered ejectment of the tenant without giving leave to contest, against which order this revision has beep filed.
(3.) THE argument on behalf of the tenant is that since the landlord was occupying two rooms one on the ground floor and one on the second floor, at the time of eviction application and got possession of the first floor during the pendency of the proceedings, he cannot be allowed to seek eviction of the tenant much less without affording leave to contest and to show that the accommodation in his possession is sufficient. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for the tenant that a specified landlord is entitled to move only one application for ejectment and not two and since one application for ejectment has already succeeded on the basis of consent, this application is not tenable.;