Ca. against M. S. Mehta was again before his Honour Judge Grain at BIM. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the parties having been {unable to decide their dispute as ts, possession of at _hree-roomed flat at 128a Szechuen Road. Plaintiff, represented by Mr. L. Kentwell, asked for an ejectment order.
Defendant denied that he -was under a monthly tenancy, saying there had been verbal agreement on a 12 months' lease. Incidentalily, he explained his omission to answer plaintiff's demand for the fiat by saying that he found it dangerous to reply. "As to who is the cause of this trouble," Mehta observed, "God alone -knows."
"Unfortunately I have got to de-
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.