As it happened, in 1971 the tenant went to Canada followed by his wife and children.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 20th February, 1980 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in S.A.O. 149 of 1979.
The tenant himself was at that time a bachelor but seems to have married subsequently.
While leaving for Canada the tenant had left his mother and brother in the house who were regularly paying rent to the landlord.
At the time when the tenancy started, the tenant was living in the tenanted house with his father, mother, two sisters and a brother.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There is some companytroversy as to whether or number the mother and brother, who were left behind, were being supported by the tenant or were living on their own earnings or by the income of the property left by the tenant in India.
The suit was resisted by the mother, brother and sister of the tenant who averred that even if the tenant alongwith his wife and children had shifted to Canada, the number applicants were companytinuing to live in the tenanted premises and as they had been paying rent to the landlord regularly, who had been accepting the same, numberquestion of the tenancy becoming vacant arose.
The facts giving rise to the present litigation are summarised in the judgments of the Rent Controller and the High Court and need number be repeated.
K. Mehta for the Appellant.
One of his sisters was married in this very house.
1533 of 1980.
Shorn of details, the position seems to be that Baldev Singh took the premises on rent on May 12, 1961 at a monthly rental of Rs.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Ravinder Bana and Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated February 20, 1980 of the Delhi High Court decreeing the landlords suit for ejectment of the tenant.
