- (1.) THIS interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant for substituting the names of heirs and legal representatives of deceased -sole appellant, who died on 23.4.2009. I.A.no. 1684 of 2009 is allowed. Let the name of heirs and legal representatives of deceased -sole appellant, as mentioned in para 4 of the substitution petition, be substituted in his place.
(2.) THIS appeal will be heard on the following substantial question of law: Whether the findings recorded by the appellate court reversing the findings of the trial court on the issue of personal necessity can be sustained in law? The respondent has already appeared in appeal and both the counsels have jointly prayed for hearing the appeal on merit. I have heard both sides on merit. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The plaintiff respondent prayed for a decree of eviction of the defendant -appellant from the shop premises on the ground of non payment of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity. The trial court dismissed the suit on both the grounds. The plaintiff -respondent preferred Title Appeal No. 89 of 2005 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The first appellate court affirmed the findings on the issue of default. However, on the issue of personal necessity the appellate court reversed the findings and held that plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for personal use and occupation. Since the plaintiff -respondent has not filed any separate appeal or cross appeal against the findings recorded by the appellate court with regard to default, the only issue to be decided by this court is the issue of personal necessity.
(3.) THE plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the building premises, in which there are four shops. The defendant is in occupation of one shop where he is running the business. The plaintiff, in order to settle her son, who is unemployed, in business requires the suit premises for starting a readymade garment shop. According to the plaintiff out of four shops the shop in question, which is in occupation of the defendant is measuring 12' X 25' whereas the other three shops are measuring 6' X 10'. The plaintiff pleaded that the shop premises in question is the most suitable place for running a readymade garment shop.;