HARI RAM Vs. LAJPAT BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment from a shop situated in the city of Bikaner. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint was that the defendant was in occupation of the suit shop on a rent of Rs. 5/- per month and that he hod not paid rent for 16 months since December 1968. It was alleged that the suit shop was required by the plaintiff respondent for his own use and that the defendant had also caused damage to the suit shop. On the aforesaid grounds the plaintiff claimed a decree lor arrears of rent as well as for ejectment. The defendant pleaded that the shop had been leased out to him by Udai Bhan whose widow Smt. Sunder was alive and the plaintiff alone had no right to file the suit. While denying all the grounds of ejectment relied upon by the plaintiff namely, personal necessity, default in payment of rent and damage to the property, the defendant further pleaded that the notice of termination of tenancy was bad inasmuch as it had not been served on behalf of Smt. Sunder.

(2.) AFTER recording the evidence produced by the parties, the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 80/- on account of arrears of rent and also for ejectment. On appeal by the defendant the judgment and decree by the trial court were affirmed. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.

(3.) AGAIN in Munavar Basha vs. Narayanan (3) it was held that whatever shows the assent of the tenant to the alienation of the reversion and his recognition of the alienee as landlord is a valid attornment. A promise to pay rent to the alienee and a tenant's continued occupancy under the tenancy with notice of alienation amounts to a recognition of the purchaser as his landlord.