ULFAT Vs. DEENA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.10.1995 and the appellant decree dated 14.2.2001. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent against the appellant/ defendant for eviction and the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of his tenant with the specific allegations that the plaintiff and his brother Mahendra Kumar are the owners of the house in dispute. Mahendra Kumar died about 20 years ago and he was unmarried. The plaintiff is the only legal heir of said Mahendra Kumar.

(3.) The plaintiff let out the suit property about 9 years ago to the filing of the suit to defendant Ulfat, now deceased, on monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The rent was increased in the year 1983 to Rs.175/- and thereafter from the month of March, 1986 to Rs.250/-. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on the ground that the suit property is required for personal bonafide necessity of the plaintiff and on the ground of default.