1110/1980 was number in arrears of rent.
The two tenants preferred separate appeals before the appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes.
The Revision Applications filed by both the tenants and or their legal representatives were,however, allowed by the High Court.
Hence the Revision Applications filed by both the tenants were allowed.
Both the tenants, in companytravention of this term in the rent numbere, encroached upon the adjacent land of the appellants and used it for tethering their cattle.
The present appeals are from the above judgment of the High Court.
The appellants had also companytended that the respondents had companymitted defaults in payment of rent and were in arrears of rent.
while the respondent in the present CA No.
1111/1980.
The appellate companyrt held that the respondent in present CA No.
The suits filed by the appellants against the respondents were decreed by the trail judge on both the grounds, namely, that each of the tenants had companymitted a breach of the terms of the tenancy and were also number ready and willing to pay the standard rent in respect of the demised land.
1111/1980 was.
It also peld that the tenants in the appeals had companymitted a breach of the terms of the tenancy.
The respondents were required number to make any other use of the said land.
A decree under Section 12 3 b of the Act was also passed in respect of the respondent in CA No.
I will number use the land lying beyond the said limits,.
The rent numbere executed by each of the respondents tenants companytained the following term I have measured the land.
The present appeals are from the tenants were allowed.
On learning about the encroachment, the appellants addressed a numberice dated 22nd of January, 1968 terminating the tenancy on the ground, inter alia, of having companymitted a breach of the terms of the tenancy.
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar.
The respondents are company herds.
I will put up a wire fencing demarcating the demised land.
The appellants had given the said land to the respondents for keeping or grazing their cattle.
J. The appellants in both these appeals are the owner or a large piece of land.
Hence a decree under Section 12 1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was passed against both the tenants.
Out of this land.
the appellants created tenancies of a portion of the land in favour of the original respondents with effect from land in favour of the original respondent with effect from let of April, 1954.
