DULLAN MAL ALIAS DARIYANAMAL Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.2002 passed by the first appellate court affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.2.1995 passed by the learned trial court evicting the appellant from the suit premises.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for eviction against the defendant- appellant on the ground of non-payment of monthly rent as well as reasonable and bonafide requirement which came into existence because of partition of the suit premises. The defendant-appellant contested the suit and on the basis of pleading, the learned trial court framed six issues, including as to; whether the defendant-appellant was defaulter in making payment of the rent; whether he had made any unauthorised alteration in the suit property; whether the defendant-appellant was liable to be evicted on the ground that he had acquired his own house; whether the accommodation was required for personal use of the plaintiff-respondents; and whether partial eviction could serve the purpose. The evidence was led by the parties and after appreciating the same, the trial court decreed the suit recording the finding of facts that the defendant-appellant was the defaulter; no material unauthorised alteration had been made by him in the suit premises; his wife had acquired a house and possession thereof had been acquired by him; the suit premises was reasonably and bonafide required for the personal use of the family of the plaintiff- respondents and partial eviction would not serve any purpose. The trial court affirmed the findings of facts on all the issues. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents, has opposed the sole contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant.