VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments of two Courts below giving eviction decree in favour of the plaintiff - respondent in respect of the suit shop which was let out by the plaintiff - respondent to the defendant - appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from December, 1989 to August, 1991 and also on the ground of personal bonafide necessity for the plaintiff who was 60 years of age when the suit was filed in the year 1991, now she is 80 years of age. The plaintiff claimed that she is residing at first floor of the house and looking to her old age, she has to come down 15 to 20 ft. for stair case for using the latrine situated at the ground floor and therefore, she needs the shop in question for making her residence at the ground floor itself. Both the Courts below have found it to be a bonafide need of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for eviction. The plaintiff also stated in the suit that she has only a daughter Asha Devi who was at that time in service as a teacher and was looking after her as she was a widow.
(2.) IN the present second appeal, by an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., the plaintiff - respondent has further stated that now in her advance age of 78 years, she has suffered a fracture of femur bone on 16.2.2006 and therefore, since she cannot go up on the stair case, she has to take another residential house for herself at a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/ - per month and thus by this application, the plaintiff - respondent again pressed for dismissal of this second appeal as she needs the said suit premises urgently. For the reasons given in the application, the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the documents placed with the said application are taken into consideration. The only substantial question of law framed by this Court when this appeal was admitted on 12.5.2005 was following: Whether the findings of the learned courts below on the question of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the plaintiff is perverse on the face of the statement of the plaintiff Shevi Bai and her daughter P.W. 2 Asha Devi as a reading of the statements of the two witnesses together shows that according to P.W.1, even on today (date of recording the statement) only dispute is regarding the rent as there is price inflation while according to P.W.2 the only source of livelihood, of the plaintiff is the rental income
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant - defendant Mr. Manish Shishodia argued that that in view of the statement of P.W.1 Smt. Shevi Bai and her daughter Smt. Asha Devi herself that the plaintiff wanted the increase of rent and that was mere ground for insistence for getting the suit shop vacated in which the defendant was carrying on his business of general merchant and therefore, the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit and the present second appeal deserves to be allowed.;