Ashok Parihar, J. - (1.) Suit for eviction filed on behalf of plaintiff- respondents was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.1980 on the ground of bonafide necessity of one Ravi Shanker. During the pendency of the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, the above Ravi Shanker joined the Government service. As such, the decree of the Trial Court was modified by the Lower Appellate Court to the ex- tent that in case the above Ravi Shanker does not resign from Government service and start the business as alleged by him in the premises in question, the defendants-appellants shall be free to take possession of the premises in question. The judgment and decree dated 9.1.1990 passed by the Lower Appellate Court is under challenge in the present appeal.
(2.) As has come on record, during the pendency of the present appeal, the above Ravi Shanker also died on 21.5.1998.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants submitted that the decree of evidence was passed on the ground of bonafide necessity of the above Ravi Shanker and after his death the bonafide necessity would not survive. In the alternative, it has been submitted that the legal heirs of the above Ravi Shanker can earn their livelihood frpm the part of the premises in question and the decree of partial eviction can be passed by this Court in the present appeal.;