- (1.) After hearing Mr. Pana Chand Jain learned counsel for the tenant appellant I find that the lower appellate Court has affirmed the decree of the trial Court for eviction against the tenant-defendant on the ground that the respondent-landlord requires the premises reasonably and bonafide for use and occupation for himself and his family. There is enough evidence on the record to prove that the landlord-respondent is living in a rented house and that he needs to occupy the premises in suit for the residence of himself and his family. The landlord-respondent appeared as his own witness and explained his own need for occupation of the premises in dispute for his residence. He deposed that he is at present living in rented premises and that his lessor is pressing him hard for vacating the said premises.
(2.) Om Prakash the lessor of the landlord-respondent in the instant case also appeared as witness and deposed that he has been requesting landlord-respondent to vacate his house and that the landlord respondent has given him a promise to do so as soon as he is able to acquire vacant possession of his own house from the tenant-appellant.
(3.) It has also come in evidence that the present premises in occupation of the landlord of the respondent as a tenant of Om Prakash consists of merely one room and a kitchen. The premises are even otherwise damp and dingy.;