- (1.) Though the present second appeal was admitted on 19.7.1988 but without framing any substantial question of law. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal because of the fact that the two courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to prove the need for the shop in dispute.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the suit has been filed by not a private party, therefore, there cannot arise any ill-motive or lack of bona fide of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the shop itself was constructed over a space over which the plaintiff intended to construct the stairs but because of the reasons mentioned in the plaint, the stairs were not constructed and the shop was constructed for temporary period and it was let out to the defendant on 12.12.1973. The plaintiff is in need of the suit premises because the plaintiff wants to have stairs so that they may manage their property properly. In view of the above, the two courts below failed to appreciate the facts of the case properly.
(3.) I considered the facts of the case and perused the plaint allegations.;