The lease was for a period of one year and the monthly rent was Rs.35/ .
A3 to all the defendants calling upon them to deliver possession of the suit premises.
The purchaser served a numberice Ex.
The landlord was asked to approach defendant Nos.2 and 3 for rent as well as for possession.
The tenant took along with him in the business his two younger brothers.
The landlord sent another numberice dated 22.12.1979 Ex.
B2 to the numberice stating that he had numberhing to do with the property as Defendants No.2 and 3 were in possession thereof.
Briefly the facts are that the appellant Radhakrishnan had taken on lease a property hereinafter referred as the suit property on rent from one Thanakachalam vide registered lease deed dated 2.2.1970.
The tenant sent a reply dated 7.12.1979 Ex.
The property was purchased by the respondent plaintiff vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.6.1979.
B1 on the tenant on 26.11.1979 calling upon him to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises.
It appears that after taking the premises on lease tenant carried out certain improvements therein and started the business of running a printing press there.
J U D G M E N T ARUN KUMAR, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.10.1996 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court disposing of three interconnected matters between the parties.
