GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. - (1.) DEFENDANTS are appellants. Admittedly, Mahabir Prasad Khandelwal defendant No. 1 was inducted as tenant in the suit premises detailed in Schedule to the plaint on monthly rental of Rs. 45/ -. Plaintiffs Gayatri Devi and Kisto Prasad Sah. who were wife and husband filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1984 for eviction against the defendants, namely, Mahabir Prasad Khandelwal and his full brother Rameshwar Lal Kandelwal on the grounds of personal necessity, default in payment of rent since August, 1980, and subletting in favour of defendant No. 2.
(2.) DEFENDANTS denied plaintiffs personal necessity default in payment of rent and sub -letting to defendant No. 2. It was asserted that both the defendants were full brothers and they were still joint and were living together. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs had bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises and the suit premises was sub -let to Rameshwar Lal Khandelwal by Mahabir Prasad Khandelwal, who was tenant in the suit premises. It was found that defendant No. 2 was living in the suit premises with his family members and defendant No. 1 with his family members was living in a different premises. Plaintiffs failed to prove any default on the part of defendants in payment of rent.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , on remand the trial Court considered the question of partial eviction in detail and held that partial eviction would not satisfy the plaintiffs need.;