1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment in Second Appeal No. 260/2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad. The respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on the ground of default in paying rent. The appellant contended that notice terminating the tenancy was not valid under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act as the tenancy was on yearly basis for manufacturing purpose. Trial court accepted this plea and dismissed the suit.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-landlord filed an appeal and Appellate Court held that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was proper. The Appellate Court held that there was default in payment of arrears of rent and ordered eviction.
4. Against the judgment of the Appellate Court, the present appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court and the appeal was entertained by the learned Single Judge and interim relief was granted on 6th July, 2004. Thereafter, when the appeal came up for hearing on 9-6-2003, the counsel for the appellant was not present and the learned Single Judge dismissed the second appeal in absence of the counsel for the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed before us.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the counsel for the appellant should have been heard in the matter. In the result we set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter to the High Court for hearing Second Appeal No. 260/2000 on merits at the earliest.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.