SABIR HUSSAIN Vs. CHAUTHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT for eviction of commercial premises was filed by plaintiff-respondent Chauthmal (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs) on the ground of bonafide necessity, default and nuisance. During the pendency of the suit, the above plaintiff-Chauthmal stood retired from Government service on reaching the age of superannuation. As such, amendment was sought in the plaint seeking eviction also on the ground of his own personal necessity after retirement. The issues were also framed accordingly. The evidence was led and the suit was decreed on the ground of bonafide necessity by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2. 12. 2002. The above judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be challenged before the lower appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff-Chauthmal also died. However, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 31. 8. 2007. Hence the present second appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, since the plaintiff-Chauthmal had died, as such, the ground of bonafide necessity as raised by deceased Chauthmal did not survive. It has further been submitted that no amendment was sought on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents to show the bonafide necessity of widow or even her sons and the appellant was denied opportunity of countering the evidence so could have been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents on this ground.