The 2nd respondent and the Appellant executed a
written lease agreement stipulating a tenancy period of one year with an option
to renew. The said lease agreement was never renewed by a written document
after it expired. The Appellant continued to occupy the suit premises and pay
rent. Later the respondent served the Appellant with a letter requiring her to
provide vacant possession of the suit premises in the period of three months
and required her to pay all house rent due up to that date because the house
was going to be sold to public servants. Thereafter she received a notice
requiring her to vacate the suit premises. She filed a land case (subject
matter of this appeal) in the District Land and Housing Tribunal, alleging that
she is a lawful tenant of the suit premises and that she is eligible to
purchase the same. Her claims were disputed by the respondents. The trial
tribunal found that the Appellant is not a lawful tenant. The trial tribunal
rejected to determine the eligibility and entitlement of the applicant to buy
the suit premises on grounds that it was not specifically pleaded.