The appellant admitted the tenancy but pleaded that the intention of the parties at the time of its creation was to grant tenancy permanently because the lease was granted in favour of the appellant for manufacturing purpose and since the inception of the tenancy, the appellant was carrying on business of manufacturing transmission towers and railway electrification fittings.
Before the Trial Court an application under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. was filed which was allowed, as according to the Trial Court in the written statement there was clear admission by the appellant.
The tenancy was created by an oral agreement.
The respondents filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit land and also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages mesne profits.
According to respondents the appellant was a monthly tenant and, therefore, 15 days numberice terminating the tenancy, as required under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act for short the Act was issued, receipt of which was number disputed.
LITTTTTTTJJUDGMENT PHUKAN, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has impugned the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court passed in R.F.A. No.325 of 1997 by which the High Court upheld the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi.
