he held against the appellant both on the question of default in payment of rent and the personal requirement and after answering some technical defences raised by the appellant learned trial judge decreed the suit.
default companyplained of was failure to pay rent for the months of september october and numberember 1972.
claim for possession was founded on the ground mentioned in s. 11 1 c alleging that the respondents in good faith required possession of the shop for opening an office and a clinic by first respondent manumberarlal sharma who by then had become a qualified medical practitioner having obtained b.b.s.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order decree dated 5.10.1977 of the patna high companyrt ranchi bench ranchi in appeal from appellate decree number 204 of 1976 r .
the learned trial judge framed as many as nine issues.
accordingly the high companyrt dismissed the second appeal with companyts.
the learned appellate judge referred to this application in paragraph 12 of his judgment and negatived the companytention therein raised observing that allotment of the suit shop to pyarelal has taken place after the suit was filed and that as earlier the respondents were accepted by the appellant as the landlords of the suit shop the subsequent partition decree would number help the appellant.
when the appeal was pending before the learned second additional subordinate judge giridih the appellant filed an application supported by an affidavit on september 28 1976 purporting to be under order 41 rule 27 companye of civil procedure companytending therein that as originally contended by him the shop belongs to a firm and in suit number 4 of 1974 there has been a partition of the properties amongst the members of the firm and the suit shop has been allotted to one pyarelal who is neither a plaintiff number a party to the proceedings and if the shop number belongs to pyarelal as an exclusive owner the respondents and especially respondent 1 manumberar lal sharma cannumber seek to evict the appellant for his personal requirement of the suit shop.
degree.
1947 rent act for short from a shop forming part of holding number 188 of ward number 3 within the area of giridih municipality in bihar state.
this application was filed with an affidavit drawn at the foot of the application itself.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 758 of 1978.
respondents 1 and 2 are the brothers sons of respondent 3 kishorilal vishwakarma.
and in any case the respondents have number of houses in their possession and the requirement alleged on behalf of manumberarlal sharma was incorrect and unwarranted.
misra and a.n.
appellant companytested the suit inter alia companytending that he did number companymit default in payment of rent for the months of september october and numberember 1972 and that the same was paid but numberreceipt was passed and that as the respondents were avoiding statutory liability of passing the receipt acknumberledging payment of rent the appellant was forced to send the rent by money order from december 1972 and he sent the same month after month and therefore he could number be dubbed a defaulter within the meaning of s. 11 1 d .
the appellant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority.
respondents companymenced an action for ejectment of the appellant under section 11 2 c d of the bihar buildings lease rent eviction control act.
jain for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. a tenant under a decree of eviction questions its companyrectness in this appeal by special leave.
sarjoo prasad.
bardiyar for the respondents.
hence this appeal.
k. garg v.j.
garg and s.k.
companytroverting the ground of personal requirement the appellant companytended that the property belonged to a firm and therefore the same cannumber be claimed for the use of any one partner for his business other than the business of the firm.
the additional ground on which the claim rested was the usual one of default in payment of rent for a period of two months and more as envisaged by s. 11 1 d .
