SHIV DUTT Vs. POORAN CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for eviction was passed against the tenant by the trial Court. The appeal preferred by the tenant before the first appellate Court was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial Court was sustained. This is tenant's second appeal.

(2.) IN the suit the landlord took a plea that the accommodation being for non-residential purposes is required bonafide for the purposes of starting business by his major son namely Ram Narain. This need of the landlord was found to be genuine and as stated above, a decree for eviction was passed.

(3.) THE additional facts which are sought to be proved are that one shop which was under the tenancy of Ramprasad was got vacated. It is further submitted that this order of eviction was sustained right up to the Supreme Court of India. He has further submitted that the landlord built three new shops. It is also alleged that another shop which was under the tenancy of Matadeen has also been got vacated. It is on these premises, the contention has been raised that the matter should be given a fresh look and that the subsequent events be taken into consideration.