contemplated other clauses such as when the tenant did not complete the sale transaction by paying the balance sale consideration, the rent payable would again be Rs.150/- per month. Though initially, the landlord had contended that some signed stamp papers had been taken by the tenant, it transpired in evidence that a copy of the written agreement itself had been filed and marked as Ex.P-2, which sets out the terms as referred to in the petition and the genuineness of the agreement was itself not in serious challenge at the trial. Admittedly, the entire sale consideration had not been paid and the property had not been transferred to the 1st respondent. It was the landlord's contention that after the agreement, the tenant had vacated forcibly his own tenant at the ground floor and took possession of the same. The property of which the tenant was occupying at the first floor had been sublet in favour of the 2nd respondent. According to him, no written consent had been taken from him and on the failure of the tenant to obtain the sale deed, he filed a suit for ejectment complaining the tenant's possession at the ground floor as a trespasser but when a defence was taken by the tenant that he was in possession of the property under an agreement of sale, he withdrew the suit and filed the petition for eviction under the grounds referred to above.
