Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Amoli Bai in her lifetime filed a suit for eviction against defendant Kanhaiya Lai appellant for the shop in dispute. The plaintiff Amoli Bai pleaded that shop in dispute is required for running a Medical Shop by Amoli Bai herself and, therefore, there is personal bonafide need of the suit premises. It is also submitted that the defendant-tenant wrongfully trespassed and took forcible possession over the staircase, side room and a ceiling, which are not the part of the lease property. The defendant-tenant started cooking sweets over the roof, resulting into causing nuisance. The plaintiff Amoli Bai also claimed damages for unauthorized use of the property.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant-tenant-appellant denying the plaint allega- tions. The defendant also took a plea that initially shop was let out by Sh. Dayal Das husband of Amoli Bai. Dayal Das expired leaving behind other heirs also, therefore, she alone could not have filed the suit for eviction against the defendant-tenant. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Amoli Bai expired on 2nd August, 1987 and an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CC was filed, upon which sons of the plaintiff Amoli Bai, Sh. Laxman Das and Chandrabhan were taken on record. After becoming parties, the legal representatives of Amoli Bai amended the plaint and pleaded that the suit property is required for personal necessity of their sons Anil Kumar S/o Chandrabhan and Vijay Kumar S/o Laxmandas, so that they may run the Medical Shop with General Store.;