At this stage it would be useful to recall some factual contentions emerging from the pleadings: In 1995 the appellant/defendant was asked to vacate and hand over possession of the suit premises, on the ground of the violation of the terms of the lease; On 25th May, 1996 a notice was alleged to have been served upon the defendant, requiring it to vacate the premises, on 12th September, 1996, tenancy is alleged to have expired by efflux of time and on 8th September, 1996, telegraphic notices were also alleged to have been served upon the defendant. The defendant had pleaded that they were the contractual tenants in respect of the basement since 12-91990 and in respect of ground floor since 29-11 -1985; that the lease deeds dated 12-5-1994 were never acted upon and were sham documents; two tenancies existed in respect of the ground floor and two tenancies existed in respect of the basement and plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 used to get separate cheques in their individual names, in respect of each of these portions. In fact, the plaintiffs did not deny the fact that they had been receiving the rent separately in their respective names, with regard to the ground floor and basement tenancies. However, it was pleaded that in 1995, the defendants started issuing two separate cheques in the name of each of the plaintiffs for their convenience. On the basis of these pleadings trial Court, inter alia, framed specific issues that whether the defendant is a contractual tenant or not and whether the lease was validly terminated or was terminated by efflux of time?
