- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The landlord/plaintiff/respondent filed suit for eviction of his tenant/defendant/appellant on the ground of default committed by the tenant in payment of rent and on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.1999, against which the appellant/defendant preferred first appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 2.5.2000.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff filed suit for eviction of the appellant from the rented premises despite the fact that the landlord has got a slightly bigger shop with him, therefore, there arises no question of any hardship to the respondent/plaintiff in case, the decree of eviction is not passed in favour of the landlord against the tenant from the suit premises. It is also submitted that it is mere wish of the landlord and not a dire necessity.;