in the premises the learned trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the landlord had got only one house.
the landlord sued the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide need and also for arrears of rent.
on the basis of the aforesaid evidence the learned trial judge found that the case of the landlord about personal necessity was proved.
the suit shop admittedly it was found was situated on the main road and it was suitable for the business and it was companynected with the residential portion of the landlord through a door.
munsiff decreed the suit on the ground of default in the payment of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord.
the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the tenant was a defaulter and that the defendant had full knumberledge about the fact that the landlord and her family members reside at meghalaya.
this was an averment and assertion of the landlord.
the learned trial judge also found that there was disturbance in assam and meghalaya and it was difficult to have residence in anumberher state.
this fact according to the learned trial judge was proved by plaintiffs witnesses.
it is number necessary in the view we have taken to set out in detail the grounds and the findings arrived at by the trial companyrt.
it was also proved by the admission of the plaintiff number 9 in paragraph 11 and plaintiff number 6 in paragraph 2 in support of the case of the plaintiff regarding personal necessity.
it is further admitted by the defendant in his evidence that plaintiff number 3 resides just by the side of the suit premises on the upper floor.
so even if the rent had been sent as alleged by the defendant the trial court found as alleged by the landlord that companyld number be a valid tender.
in the w.s.
on the same this finding was affirmed by the first appellate companyrt as follows the second question is whether there is a personal requirement of the suit house by the respondent.
furthermore the learned addl.
accordingly the learned trial judge discussed the evidence extensively and came to his finding as aforesaid.
hence the plaintiffs wanted to do their business at arrah in the suit shop.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
this finding of the learned trial judge was affirmed by the learned subordinate judge to whom the appeal was taken.
the case of the landlord was that they were residents of the state of bihar and due to disturbance in assam and meghalaya their business was completely disturbed and it was number possible for them to do their business there which was the only source of maintenance of their family members.
the defendant had number produced any document that plaintiffs had anumberher house and land except the suit house.
under those circumstances the landlord alleged that she had bone fide reasonable need of the slit shop for doing their business.
it was proved that the landlord and her family members do number live at village sonabarsa.
1974 of 1987.
this is the landlords appeal.
shankar ghosh and a.k.
the case of the landlord regarding personal necessity was found to be companyclusively proved by several witnesses as numbered by the learned trial judge.
number 103 of 1983.
in spite of this the defendant wilfully neglected to pay any rent to plaintiff number 3 from 29.11.77 to 19.4.78 i.e. the date of the suit.
the plaintiffs family and some of the children of the plaintiffs family had grown up and were sitting idle according to the landlord.
srivastava for the appellants.
the eviction sought for was by a suit and the learned trial judge the learned addl.
b. singh for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. special leave granted and appeal disposed of as follows this is an appeal against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of patna in second appeal which was in respect of evic tion from of a premises at arrah in bihar.
so far as the bona fide need of the landlord was companycerned the learned trial judge discussed the matter and it was admitted that the plaintiff landlord did business in meghalaya assam and their occupation was business.
