The trial Court before which the aforesaid companytention was raised during the time of argument spurned it down on the premise that the tenant defendant had admitted in the written statement that the tenancy was admittedly for a fixed period of 5 years and hence he cannot be heard to argue differently.
This Special Leave Petition has been filed in challenge of the aforesaid decree of eviction as companyfirmed by the High Court.
After he got himself impleaded as a plaintiff he Jettisoned most of the grounds put forth in the suit far eviction and companyfined to the surviving ground that, the period of tenancy has expired.
During pendency of the suit for eviction, ownership of the building has again been transferred and the present respondent has companye into the field.
Petitioner companytended that there was numbervalid lease by which any specified period of tenancy has been fixed.
Ownership of the building had passed from the then landlord to Smt.
From the trial companyrt up to the High Court the landlord succeeded on the said ground.
Indrajit Kaur who, in 1982, started the litigation for eviction of the petitioner from the building.
D E R Subject matter of this litigation is a shop room.
It was rented to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.90/ .
