GUMAN MAL LODHA,J. - (1.) IN this second appeal the principal point raised by Mr. R.M. Lodha, counsel for the appellant is that the first appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the suit inspite of the finding on additional issue that the defendants were not carrying on business with the deceased tenant. The plaintiff is landlord and the defendants are husband and son of tenant.
(2.) ACCORDING to plaintiff's allegation Mst. Anandi took the shop on rent for 11 months at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month and executed the rent deed. The rent deed period expired. Mst. Anandi expired in 1966. Mst. Anandi's husband and son are defendants, and they have got no right to continue as tenant. But the shop is not being vacated.
(3.) IN the written statement it was pleaded that Anandi was not tenant. It was Tarachand who was tenant. It was alleged that the rent deed is forged. After framing of the issue and recording of the evidence, the trial Court found that Anandi was tenant but holding over. The trial Court then held that the legal representatives of Anandi became tenants but holding over and since all of them were not made parties the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was also held that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not served and therefore, also the suit was liable to be dismissed.;