MADAN GOPAL SHARMA Vs. BHANWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction of her tenant/appellant/defendant on the grounds including personal bonafide necessity. The plaintiff pleaded that the shop in question is required for the business of his retired husband and for business of his son. The two courts below concurrently after appreciation of evidence held that the plaintiff proved bonafide need.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff's husband retired in the year 1988 whereas the suit has been filed in the year 1992. The plaintiff's son was in service at Kuwait at the time of filing of the suit and the ground for eviction on the basis of the plaintiff's son's need was inserted by amendment of plaint by the plaintiff. That amendment should not have been allowed by the courts below. With above argument, learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the suit on the basis of need of the plaintiff's son was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the reasons given by the two courts below.