(1) Mr. Srinivasarao's contention is that the District Judge having found that the landlord was in occupation of another non-residential building for the purpose of his business, to the possession of which he was entitled, should not have made out a new case for the landlord that there had been some act of subletting by the petitioner to his son.
(2) Mr. Jayamahadev Prasad made a submission that it is open to him to support the conclusion of the District Judge, not only on the ground on which, his judgment rests but also on the ground which was alleged by the landlord, although it was not upheld by the District Judge. It is in evidence that the landlord is a young man carrying on stationery business and that when he made that application he was in occupation of non-residential build belonging to someone else.
The trustees who were in management of that building, according to the landlord, had issued a notice to the landlord calling upon him to quit and delivery possession of the property to the trustees. Mr. Jayamahadev Prasad's argument is that, when the landlord made his application he was, by reason of that notice, no longer entitled to occupation of that non-residential building, and that the District Judge was not right in thinking that the landlord was entitled to the possession of another non-residential building and that therefore he could not evict the petitioner.
(3) It may be, as contended by Mr. Srinivasarao, that in thinking that there was some act of subletting by the petitioner to his son, the District Judge made out a new case for the landlord. But it appears to make that the Controller's finding that the landlord when he made his application was not entitled to the possession of the non-residential building of which he was in occupation, either under the Act or others, should not have been disturbed by the District Judge. When one of the trustees who were in management of that non-residential building issued a notice to the landlord calling upon him to quit and deliver possession of that property to the trustees, the tenancy in respect of that building came to an end and stood terminated. That being so, the landlord was no longer entitled to the possession of the building either under the Act or otherwise.
(4) Mr. Srinivasarao made a feeble attempt to suggest that the notice issued by only one of the trustees is not likely to be a valid notice since all the trustees under the law had to join to bring about the termination of the tenancy in that way.
(5) The validity of that notice was never impugned at any stage of these proceedings and it is not at all improbable that the trustee who issued that notice was the managing trustee. I am not also convinced that even for the purpose of bringing about a termination of the tenancy all the trustees must join in issuing the notice.
(6) It is well settled law that if there are more than one trustee who are in management of the trust property, and even if it can be said that all those trustees are the landlords of a particular tenancy, the tenant will not be entitled to continue to be in possession of the property leased to him which belongs to the trust, even if any one of the landlords, namely, trustees is unwilling to continue the tenancy and brings about its termination.
(7) I see no reason to interfere with the order made by the District Judge and I dismiss this revision petition with costs.
(8) Mr. Srinivasarao asks for three months' time for the tenant to vacate, for which Mr. Jaya-mahadev Prasad has no objection, and I grant time accordingly.
(9) Revision dismissed.