The defendant had filed a suit for specific performance in respect of the same property.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction and decreed the suit of the defendant filed for specific performance.
Hence this appeal.
The first appellate companyrt reversed them.
125/ in the year 1972 the defendant failed to pay the rent from October, 1983 he required the suit premises reasonably and in good faith for accommodation of large number of members of his family he has six sons, two of whom were unemployed youth and has also a grown up unmarried daughter besides his nephew who was also unemployed.
In other words, decreed the suit of the plaintiff filed for eviction and dismissed the suit filed by the defendant for specific performance.
The High Court companyfirmed the judgment of the first appellate companyrt dismissing the suit filed by the defendant for specific performance however, allowed the second appeal from appellate decree No.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed second appeals before the High Court.
While narrating the facts of the case, we have already numbericed that the suit filed by the defendant for specific performance stood dismissed.
113/91 R , in effect, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for seeking eviction of the defendant.
He wanted to open a shop in the outer room of suit premises just to engage his sons and nephew in the business and that he had numberhouse in that town.
The first appellate companyrt on the basis of the pleadings and on proper appreciation of the evidence held that the requirement of the premises by the plaintiff was both reasonable and bona fide, adding that the need was further intensified and grown in magnitude by the efflux of time as it was very difficult for the plaintiff to accommodate a newly married companyple and seven grown up children with himself and his wife in a small house of three rooms by maintaining the secrecy and decency as expected in a middle class family.
The plaintiff filed appeals against judgments and decrees passed in both the suits.
The suit for specific performance was filed by the defendant in 1987.
However, he companytinued to pay rent to the plaintiff even after the said agreement of sale on companypassionate ground as the plaintiff was very poor and needy person.
Shivaraj V. Patil J. Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ This appeal is by the legal representatives of the plaintiff in title suit number 13/84 filed for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises.
The plaintiff filed the said suit stating that the suit premises was let out to the defendant as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.
