JUDGMENT

The respondent-land- filed an eviction petition against the appellant-tenant in relation to non-residential premises to run a Jewellery shop. He found:

i) It is claimed on the footing that he had experience in running jewellery shop;

ii) He had the financial capacity to run such a business;

iii) He had made an application to the excise authorities who had called upon him to produce a ground plan of the premises in which the business is to be run.

No doubt that plan is yet to be produced. Therefore, the need is bona fide. However the trial court did not accept the case of the landlord and rejected the petition for eviction. On appeal the judgment of the trial court was reversed and an order was passed which is confirmed in revision by the High Court hence this appeal.

2. Before us Mr. ATM Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged these two points. (1) The landlord has come only with an oblique motive because the appellant-tenant agreed to pay the enhanced rate of pagari; (2) In any event, inasmuch as one of the portions of the premises had fallen vacant during the stage of trial and admittedly the landlord had let out in favour of Krishan Das which is one of the