NARENDRA SINGH Vs. FATEH KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the original suit was filed on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of plaintiff Pran Lal. He died and thereafter, the legal representatives of Pran Lal who are ladies, widow of Pran Lal and daughter-in-law of Pran Lal, sought decree for eviction of tenant/appellant on the same ground of business which initially Pran Lal wanted to start.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the appellant, both the ladies cannot run the business as they have no experience. It is also submitted that the courts below committed serious error of law in holding that the appellant could not have come to the shop to run the business in view of the fact that he was in service at Mehasana and thereafter, at Bhilwara. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was doing the business with the help of his father and servants and he used to do business and particularly, he himself actively participated in the business on saturdays and sundays. In view of the above, the two courts below committed illegality in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.