The appellant filed suit against respondent No.
The appellants suit apart from possession was for manse profits.
2 gave numberice to the appellant that the premises occupied by it would number be required by it after 30 September 1954.
2 herein and claimed possession of suit premises.
2 did number deliver vacant possession to the appellant or his son though the appellant specifically wrote to the respondent in that behalf.
The companytroversy is that respondent No.
2 had taken possession of the premises on 1 February 1954.
The same Gaya Prasad who as agent of the appellant had let the respondent into possession took vacant possession of the premises.
Respondent No.
On 17 September 1954 respondent No.
The ease of the respondent is that the respondent had entered in to possession on 1 February 1954 and one Gaya Prasad agent of the appellant had let the respondent into pos session.
N. Ray, C.J. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 8 February 1965 passed in Regular First Appeal No.
59 D of the 1956 by the High Court of Punjab Circuit Bench at Delhi.
