PAWAN KUMAR Vs. HAJARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has filed present appeal. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff/ respondent bona fidely needed the suit accommodation for business of his major son Kundanlal.

(2.) THIS appeal was admitted on 2-8-2000 on following substantial questions of law :-

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff/respondent has not stated in his statement the words "bona fide "without which decree for eviction could not be passed. It is necessary for the plaintiff to state the words "bona fide" in his statement. He submits that during the pendency of the suit plaintiff got a shop but without pleading non-suitability of the aforesaid shop, suit ought to have been dismissed. He further submits that the plaintiff in place of starting business of Kundanlal has wrongly started business of Neeraj Kumar, grand son in the shop vacated by one Shri Shastri. This fact shows that in fact plaintiff has no bona fide necessity for the suit accommodation and has filed present suit mala fide.