In addition to this the numberice called upon the defendant to vacate the premises by April 30, 1959 upon two grounds 1 that the premises were required by the plaintiffs genuinely for business and 2 that the defendant had sublet a portion of the premises to two persons without the permission of the plaintiffs and without having any right to sublet the premises.
The defendant did number vacate the premises and, therefore, the present suit for eviction was instituted on August 14, 1959.
The plaintiffs accepted the cheque and cashed it on July 4, 1959 and gave a fresh numberice on July 9, 1959 requiring the defendant to vacate the premises by the end of the month of July.
1,320.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 27, 1962, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
307 of 1963.
In their numberice the plaintiffs also stated that they had cashed the cheque under protest.
The only question is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to eject the defendant upon the ground that the latter was in arrears of rent for one year and had failed to pay the arrears within one month of the service of the numberice dated April 11, 1959 upon him.
The plaintiffs claim for eviction on the grounds that the premises were required by them bona fide for the purpose of their business and that the defendant had illegally let them out was negatived by the companyrts below and, therefore, must be left out of question.
23 of 1955 herein referred as the Accommodation Act is in force.
This numberice was received by the defendant on April 16, 1959.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Setalvad, Rameshwar Nath and S.N. Andley, for the respondents.
158 of 1962.
1,020 within one month from the date of service of numberice and stating that on his failure to do so, a suit for ejectment would be filed against him.
On April II, 1959 the plaintiffs served a numberice on the defendant bringing to his numberice the fact of his being in arrears of rent for 12 months and requiring him to remit to them Rs.
110 p.m. It is number disputed that the defendant was in arrears of rent from April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959 to the extent of Rs.
On June 25, 1959 the defendant sent a reply to the numberice enclosing with it a cheque for Rs.
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General of India, O.C. Mathur, Revindra Narain and J.B. Dadachanji for the appellant.
It may be mentioned that this amount companysisted of the rental arrears as well as the rent due right up to June 30, 1959.
The tenancy being from month to month it was open to the plaintiffs to terminate it by giving 15 days numberice expiring at the end of the month of the tenancy as provided for in s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
It is companymon ground that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs and the rent of the premises in his occupation was Rs.
October 24, 1963.
1,020.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the defendants appeal in which he had challenged the decision of the companyrts below ordering his ejectment from certain premises which are in his occupation as the tenant of the plaintiffs.
