PUSHPA SHEE Vs. SHANTI LATA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.N. Sahi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises.

(3.) At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention here that the suit premises is a shop, fully described in the schedule of the plaint wherein the defendant carries on her business. The relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant is also admitted and the defendant has accepted that she has been paying rent to the plaintiff for the suit premises. It would further be pertinent to mention here that originally the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant on ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent but now only the relief of eviction only on ground of personal necessity has been pressed in this second appeal on behalf of the appellant. In this view of the matter, the rival cases of the parties and their submissions on the issue pertaining to eviction on ground of personal necessity alone is being noticed and considered in this judgment.