M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN these appeals, since common questions of law and facts are involved and common substantial questions of law were formulated, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BY order dated 7.2.2007, these appeals were admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law and liberty was also given to formulate other substantial question of law at the time of hearing of the appeals. (1) Whether a decree for eviction on the ground of personal necessity can be sustained in law in favour of a person who instituted the suit for his personal necessity on the basis of an agreement to sale? (2) Whether having regard to the fact that the suit teas instituted by the plaintiff on 12.5.2000 and a sale deed was executed in his favour by the original owner on 6.7.2004, a decree for eviction on the ground of personal necessity can be passed in his favour? In course of hearing, the following substantial question of law has also been formulated to be decided in these appeals. i) Whether the findings recorded by both the Courts below on the issue of personal necessity are perverse in law?
(3.) THE plaintiff -respondent namely, Basudha Coke (India) Pvt Ltd, instituted three suits being Title Eviction Suit Nos. 19 of 2000, 22 of 2000 and 23 of 2000 against the appellants for decree of eviction in respect of the suit premises described in the schedules of the plaints. The plaintiff - respondent 'scase in the plaint is that the plaintiff -firm is the owner of the suit premises and the defendants -appellants were inducted as tenants by the outcome owner Shri Kamal Chandrakant Singhvi. Said Kamal Chandrakant Singhvi transferred the suit premises to the plaintiff and informed about the said transfer to the defendants and they were directed to pay rent to the plaintiff from November, 1990. It was alleged that the defendants failed to pay rent of the suit premises and made themselves defaulter and consequently liable to be evicted. The plaintiff - respondent also alleged that the suit premises are required by the plaintiff for their personal necessity as the plaintiff is a business firm and is facing acute shortage of accommodation for the purpose of office as well as staffs for residence purposes.;