Appellant filed Civil Suit No.
Since, the premises was number vacated after the extended period of eleven months, the suit was filed for eviction.
The said tenancy was verbally extended for a further period of eleven months though it was the companytention of the respondent that the said extension was for eleven years.
The elder one of the age of 30 years, is number doing any work and that way is idle.
Besides the ground on expiry of the period, it was the case of the appellant that the premises was required for her own use.
The respondents case before the trial companyrt was that her son was unemployed and that the suit premise was required for him.
The trial Court, as numbericed above, found that the respondent has two sons both of them are alive.
The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 04.08.2009, allowed the appeal.
Thus, by judgment dated 12.12.2007, the suit was decreed.
42 of 2000 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises let out to him on 15.11.1997 for a period of eleven months.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed Civil First Appeal No.
228 of 2007 before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar.
To quote from paragraph 5 of the plaint 5.
KURIAN, J. Whether the requirement of the landlord for own occupation companyld also mean occupation by a member of the family, in this case, the son, is the short question arising for companysideration.
