320/ .
The companytention of the appellants was that under the companytract of lease, they had the right to sub let the promises and, there fore, the respondent was number entitled to recover possession of the premises.
It is from this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.
1915 of 1970 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment Order dated the 2nd/3rd March, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court in Revision Appln.
The respondent.
At the trial of the suit, the plea that the appellants companymitted default in payment of rent was given up and, therefore, the sole issue before the Court was whether the appellants had sub let the premises.
The respondent, the landlord, purported to terminate this tenancy by a. numberice dated February 12, 1964 on the ground that the appellants tenants had defaulted in the payment of rent and had sub let the premises.
In or about the year 1951, the firm of Osman Jamal and Company was wound up and the appellants took the premises on rent on a monthly rent of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL Appeal No.
V. Patel, KL.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the question for companysideration is whether the High Court was right in dismissing a revision petition filed by the appellants and thereby upholding the judgment of the learned District Judge, Jamnagar, decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.
1 for possession of the suit premises.
When the application for revision came up for hearing before a learned single judge of the High Court, he referred it to a Division Bench.
Hathi, A.R. Chaphekar and P.C. Kapur, for respondent No.
371 of 1966.
The suit premises companysisted of a building known as Abdul Rat man Manzil and it belonged to one Haji Mohamad, Haji Dada Wakf Trust .
N. Ganpule and Urmila Sirur for the appellants.
Against this judgment, the appellants filed a revision before the High Court of Gujarat.
The building was leased to Osman Jamal and Company under a rent numbere dated January 15, 1947.
