defendant through independent evidence. Furthermore, the date mentioned in the stamp paper itself also causes suspicious over the minds of the courts below, which was not removed by the 2nd defendant by adducing independent evidence. As per the contention of 2nd defendant that he was the manager of NDR group of companies, which is the sister concern of 1st defendant Avanthi Agencies. There is no document adduced on the side of 2nd defendant that the 1st defendant is the sister concern of NDR Group of companies and the same was rightly appreciated by the courts below. Further, there is no document adduced how the 2nd defendant represented as a Manager of NDR group of companies entitled to adduce evidence on behalf of 1st defendant. So, all the facts reveal that the 2nd defendant has no locus standi on behalf of 1st defendant as well as about the lease deed. The conduct of 2nd defendant clearly reveals that with ulterior motive, he has caused interference in the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the suit property. The non-appearance of 1st defendant itself cause adverse inference against him and hence, on his part, amounts to admission of the facts, which was relied on by the plaintiffs with regard to abandonment of tenancy. Sec.111 of Transfer of 9/11
