NAVIN BANSAL Vs. SUDARSHANA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the courts below on the ground that two courts below erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff despite the fact that the plaintiff did not appear in the witness box. It is also submitted that the landlord amended the plaint thrice and thereafter, included the need one after another for his sons and her husband. It is also submitted that two courts below committed serious error of law in holding that despite the change in plea taken by the landlord, there is need of the plaintiff for the suit shop. It is also submitted that though the area of shop is 10 ft x 45 ft but all the businesses for which the suit shop is sought by the plaintiff from the defendant, they cannot be run in one shop. This aspect was not considered by the courts below.

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