substantially and the same are only partly situated on the suit property. Therefore, it is her contention that decree of possession regarding suit premises cannot be granted. She pointed out contentions regarding suit notice dated 1st February 2011 set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint where, it is mentioned that the tenancy was terminated by notice dated 28th February 2011 and rent is not paid with effect from 7th April 2008 i.e. the date on which the Plaintiff has purchased the suit property till 30th November 2013 i.e. the period beyond the suit notice. She submitted that therefore, the suit seeking rent beyond termination notice itself is not maintainable and the said paragraph 4 clearly shows that even the suit notice itself is defective and, therefore, no decree should have been passed on the basis of the said notice. She submitted that in the plaint, a prayer is sought for Defendant to be directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.3,748/- and the said rent is for the period from 8th April 2008 to 30th November 2013 and, therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. She also pointed out paragraph 10 of the written statement of the Defendant stating that the original owner has agreed to allot an alternate premises on an ownership basis in the new building and submitted that no issue is framed with respect to said contention. It is her submission that, therefore, the decree of eviction passed by the learned Trial Court
