PURUSHOTTAM DAS Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by the First Appellate Court whereunder allowing the appeal of the defendants-tenants and setting aside the decree of eviction passed against them by the trial Court, the suit has been remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law, after appointing a guardian-ad-litem for the minor appellant No. 3, the plaintiffs have now approached this Court by means of the present appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside of the impugned order of remand.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel representing the tenant-respondents and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) THE facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiffs filed a suit giving rise to this appeal in the year 1986 impleading therein Anil Kumar and Mst. Harbanshorani Gandhi as the defendants praying for a decree of eviction against them from the accommodation in dispute and for recovery of Rs. 100/- per month as arrears of rent towards damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants were their tenants in the accommodation in dispute at a rental of Rs. 100/- per month which was paid only till the month of May 1986 where after in spite of demand the rent due had not been paid by them. It was further asserted that the accommodation in dispute which had been let out for business purposes was not being used at all without any justifiable reason and was kept locked for more than six months preceding the date of filing of the suit and was not being utilised for the purposes for which it has been let out. It was also asserted that the plaintiff No. 4 was sitting idle without any employment who wanted to establish himself in Parchuni business. The plaintiffs asserted that they will utilise the first floor of the accommodation in dispute for residential purposes and ground floor will be utilised for the business purposes. So far as the residential accommodation was concerned the need set up was for Rakesh Kumar, plaintiff No. 4. They claimed that plaintiffs have no other alternative suitable accommodation which could satisfy their need.