SRI GANESH FABRICS Vs. SITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE substantial questions of law to be answered in this second, appeal are :

(2.) THE questions aforesaid arose out of the following facts. The plaintiff - respon -dent filed a suit against defendant - appellants for eviction from the land described in Schedule -A of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent as also on the ground of personal necessity of the suit land. The suit land is a shop standing over the portion of M.S. Plot No. 623 being portion of holding No. 773, Ward No. II, Ranchi Municpality, Ranchi, situated in Upper Bazar, Marwari Tola, Ranchi, bounded in North Jai Gurdeo Cloth Store of Satya Narain, south Bodh Bihar Electric Agency, East Road and West House of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims the suit land as owner of the land. His case is that in December 1975 the said premises was tenanted to Sri Ganesh Textiles, which was owned by Mahesh Kumar Poddar, husband of defendant No. 2, and others at the monthly rental of Rs. 450/ -. In the year 1980 they left the premises and in, August 1980 the suit premises was tenanted to Ganesh Fabrics, owned by defendants the original tenant Mahesh Kumar Poddar and Hemant Kumar Poddar sons of Mahabir Prasad Poddar at the rate of Rs. 450/ - per month. According to the terms of the tenancy the rent of the current month is payable in the subsequent month and the tenancy is according to the English calendar month commencing from the first day and ending on the last day of the same month, but from January 1981 onwards inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiff the rent was not paid to him. The plaintiff was in great domestic trouble for a long time and he became financially handicapped hence he could no file the suit. Further case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff -respondent requires the building described in Schedule -A to the plaint for his own use and occupation bona fide, reasonably and in good faith as his sons have become major and are sitting idle and, therefore, as his sons constitute a joint Hindu family with the plaintiff, the plaintiff in order to settle them, requires the land in question for personal necessity. The relief was claimed for eviction of the defendants and for making over of the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.

(3.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal written statement was again allowed to be amended without objection by LA. No. 2069 of 2003 to the following extent :