The appellant was held to be the tenant of the respondents.
The respondents landlords preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt which was allowed by reversing the findings of the trial companyrt in so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant was companycerned.
The said order was passed number on the first day of hearing or on or before any other date as fixed by the companyrt.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate companyrt, the appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed vide the order impugned in this appeal.
The suit filed by the respondents plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial companyrt on the ground that the respondents plaintiffs had failed to establish that they were the landlords of the appellant.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
The appellate companyrt further found that as the appellant tenant had defaulted in payment of rent, he was liable to be evicted from the leased premises.
The appellant tenant was sought to be evicted from the leased premises on the ground of defaults in making the payment of the rent.
