R S MADAN Vs. G M SADIQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree of the courts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit for possession of a shop on the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) THE suit was brought by the plaintiff as far back as 1963 for ejecting the defendant tenant on the ground that the shop was reasonably required for the personal necessity of the plaintiff, i.e., in order to set up a business for the only son of the plaintiff who was economically dependent on him. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant had spoiled the shop and the condition of the shop had deteriorated. Lastly it was pleaded that the defendant was a defaulter and was therefore liable to eviction.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had no personal necessity, that the plaintiffs son was not economically dependent on the plaintiff as he was either conducting a business of his own or was pursuing an independent employment. The other allegations of the plaintiff were also denied by the defendant.