ASHOK KUMAR SAHAY Vs. RAMA SHANKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the appellant-landlord succeeded in the trial court, that success was actually short-lived. The High court reversed the decree. The landlord obtained a decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. His plea in the plaint was that he was a Karta of the joint family of two branches, namely, Sureshwar Sahay and Madheshwar Sahay. However, as Public Witness 1 he deposed as under:

(2.) Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court which ended in a decree in favour of the landlord. The High court, finding that the landlord does not represent the branch of Sureshwar came to the view that he does not represent the entire body of co-sharers and partition had not been proved, so as to establish that the suit property had been allotted in favour of the branch represented by the landlord. In assailing these findings two contentions are urged before us :

(3.) We find neither of these contentions could be held to be tenable. No doubt. Section ll (l) (c) enables the landlord to seek eviction on the ground that he reasonably and in good faith requires