VITHALDAS Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the suit premises is a non-residential one. The original landlord. Ram Chandra, who has since died, claimed that he was carrying on textile business in the rental premises and that the suit premises which is occupied by the appellants was bona fide required for the said business. The trial court accepted the case of the landlord and directed eviction. On appeal, the same was reversed. In the second appeal, the judgment of the appellate court was set aside and the original decree for eviction was restored. Hence, this Civil.

(2.) The following points are urged by the learned counsel for the appellants :

(3.) It is true Ram Chandra, the original landlord, died but his son, Arun kumar, after retirement has been continuing the said textile business of his father. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the bona fide need had disappeared.