LALIT KUMAR Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction of his tenant/appellant on the ground of personal bona fide necessity with the plea that he purchased the suit property from his father and presently, he is living in one room accommodation in difficult situation. THE trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 20. 8. 1996 after recording finding that the plaintiff proved his personal bona fide necessity. THE defendant/appellant preferred appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20. 8. 1996. Before the appellate Court, an argument was raised by the tenant/appellant that just before the decision of the suit by the trial Court, the plaintiff's father expired on 16. 8. 1996 thereby the plaintiff got his father's house in inheritance, therefore, the need of the plaintiff has come to an end if it was there. THE said argument was considered by the first appellate court and the first appellate court after considering the said plea of the appellant, dismissed the appeal of the appellant/defendant vide judgment and decree dated 29. 10. 2001. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) IN reply to the appellant's application under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement and for taking on record the subsequent event, it was stated by the plaintiff that his father though died but before his death, he executed a Will in the year 1993, copy of which is placed on record. The will is duly attested by Notary Public and it is clear from the Will that the plaintiff's father since sold part of the property including the shop in dispute to the plaintiff, therefore, gave a small open plot to the plaintiff measuring 250 square feet (11-3/4 feet x 22-1/4 feet. It is also stated that the plaintiff was not the only heir but he has two more brothers, one sister and mother. Therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiff's need has not come to an end.