DEBANAND CHAURASIA Vs. RAM KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant of Title (Eviction) Suit No. 2 of 1992 which was decreed against him on ground of bonafide necessity on 17.6.1995. then appeal was preferred by the defendant being title Appeal No. 38 of 1995 and the same has also been dismissed against the defendant by judgment and decree dated 13.12.1995.

(2.) The eviction suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents on three grounds: namely (1) unauthorised construction being made by the defendant; (2) on ground of defaulter and (3) on the ground of bonafide necessity of plaintiff No. 1. The Original court dismissed the ground of unauthorised construction and defaulter but decreed the suit on ground of bonafide necessity. The appellate court maintained the ejectment decree not only on the ground of bonafide necessity but also on ground of defaulter a it though, there is no Cross Appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondent.

(3.) Now, the law is clear that even if some finding is against the respondent then appeal being filed by the adversely, the respondent can press the grounds gone against him without even filing the Cross Appeal. Be it what it may, Mr. M.M. Banerjee, appearing for and on behalf of the respondents has given up the ground of defaulter and submitted that the ejectment decree can be maintained on the ground of bonafide necessity alone. Such submissions of both the parties have been recorded by this Court in Order dated 29.3.1996. As point regarding bonafide necessity related to the evidence adduced by the parties, the lower court records were called for, for deciding the matter once for al within the scope of Order XLI, Rule 11, CPC