The application was dismissed in the first instance by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground that the numberices to quit were number valid.
The High Court of Delhi on a fur ther appeal by the tenant took the view that the right to sue did number survive to the heirs of the plaintiff and on that ground it dismissed the ejectment application.
The High Court set aside the decree dated November 10, 1966 of the First Appellate Court and remanded the case to it for a fresh disposal of the appeal after trying out an additional issue of companyparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant as also the question as to whether the substituted heirs of the original plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bona fide for their occupation.
Two 1 1973 3 S.C.R. 679.
The necessity pleaded by the original plaintiff was that he required the premises for the use of the partnership firm aforesaid in which he was a partner.
Hence these appeals.
1, son of Thakordas Bhagwandas.
The first Appellate Court after remand again passed a decree for eviction from a portion of the suit premises on March 31, 1970.
The first Appellate Court by its judgment dated November 10, 2966 maintained the partial decree made by the Trial Court with slight modification.
Plaintiff filed an appeal but died during its pendency.
His widow, son and two married daughters and two children of a deceased daughter were allowed to be substituted by the Rent Control Tribu nal where the appeal was pending.
Following the decision of this Court in Phul Ranis case supra the High Court allowed the respondents revision, rejected that of the appellants and dismissed their suit for eviction in toto.
The only ground which need to be mentioned for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal is Thakordass claim of requiring the premise.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order 19.12.1973 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
Both sides went up in appeal before the First Appellate Court.
487 488 of 1976.
There were three more partners in the firm one of whom was Shantilal Thakordas, appellant No.
The tenants appeal to the Tribunal failed.
reasonably and bona fide for occupation by himself within the meaning of section 13 1 g of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in part on April 30, 1965 and passed a decree for eviction of the tenant from a portion of the suit premises.
The original plaintiff in that case had filed the application for eviction under section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Both the parties went in revision before the Gujarat High Court.
The suit was filed against respondent Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala for his eviction from the premises on several grounds.
revisions were taken to the High Court one by the appel lants and the other by the respondent.
540 and 678 of 1970 .
He was a partner in a partner ship firm styled as Jai Hind Silk Weaving Works.
The case came up to this Court.
Thakordas was dead and his heirs, namely, the present appel lants were the appellants in one appeal and respondents in the other.
P. Bhatt and H.S. Parihar for 1.
v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia 1 is companyrect.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. In these appeals by special leave the ques tion which fails for our determination is whether the deci sion of a Bench of this Court companysisting of two learned Judges in Phul Rani Ors.
K. Dholakia and R.C. Bhatia, for the appellants.
The other two were outsiders.
Thakordas Bhagwandas the father of the three appellants was owner of the suit premises.
If number, whether the appellants are entitled to get a decree for eviction in respect of the suit premises against the defendant respondent.
N. Shroff, for the re spondent.
The case was remanded by the Tribunal and after remand the Additional Rent Controller held that some of the substituted persons require the prem ises bona fide for their occupation.
