JUDGMENT

Kurian, J. –

Whether the requirement of the landlord for own occupation could also mean occupation by a member of the family, in this case, the son, is the short question arising for consideration.

2. Appellant filed Civil Suit No. 42 of 2000 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises let out to him on 15.11.1997 for a period of eleven months. The said tenancy was verbally extended for a further period of eleven months though it was the contention of the respondent that the said extension was for eleven years. Since, the premises was not vacated after the extended period of eleven months, the suit was filed for eviction.

3. Besides the ground on expiry of the period, it was the case of the appellant that the premises was required for her own use. To quote from paragraph-5 of the plaint:

"5. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

i. That the plaintiff has been deserted by her husband namely : Ch. Mohd Khatai who has arranged 2nd marriage in the state of Bangalore, leaving behind the plaintiff and two sons namely Shujat Huyder aged 27 years unemployed and Waseem Hyder aged 15 years, presently reading in 9th class.

ii. That the plaintiff has no source of income after the desertion by her hus