V. Nath, J.

Heard Mr. Abbas Haider, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P.N.Sahi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises.

3. At the outset, it be pertinent to mention here that the suit premises is a shop, fully described in the schedule of the plaint wherein the defendant carries on her business. The relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant is also admitted and the defendant has accepted that she has been paying rent to the plaintiff for the suit premises. It further be pertinent to mention here that originally the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant on ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent but now only the relief of eviction only on ground of personal necessity has been pressed in this second appeal on behalf of the appellant. In this view of the matter, the rival cases of the parties and their submissions on the issue pertaining to eviction on ground of personal necessity alone is being noticed and considered in this judgment.

4. The necessitous facts are that the suit premises is situated on the south east corner of the building originally belonging to the family of the husband of the plaintiff. In partition, the southern portion of the building (described in rough sketch map in Schedule-B of the plaint) was allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff's husband, and according to the plaintiff there was further partition of this portion, after the death of the father of the plaintiff's husband, among the mother-in-law and her three sons including the husband of the plaintiff. In the said partition the western portion of the building was allotted in the share of the mother-in-law namely Ratan Mala Shee and the two portions adjacent east to the same along with passage/opening on the G.B. Road was allotted to the separate shares of the two brothers of the plaintiff's husband namely Sapan Kumar Shee and Abhay Kumar Shee. The eastern most portion facing the G.B.Road was allotted to the plaintiff's husband Tapan Kumar Shee. The two brothers namely Sapan Kumar Shee and Abhay Kumar Shee of the plaintiff's husband had sold their respective allotted shares along with the passage/opening to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 13.08.1996.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the western portion of the building there is a passage and door opening in a lane leading to the main road known as G.B.Road and the family members of the plaintiff's husband including the plaintiff earlier used the said door for their ingress and egress in the building but after the partition and allotment of the western portion in the share of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, the difficulty has arisen in the use of the said passage and door as the mother-in-law of the plaintiff has started prohibiting the plaintiff from using the said door due to the strained relationship which developed after the plaintiff has purchased the shares of the two brothers of her husband. It is the further case of the plaintiff that southern portion of the building which is the suit premises has a passage/opening abutting G.B.Road but it was not in use as such by the joint family before partition as the passage and door in the western side was already available and was in use, and therefore the area of the said passage was let out to the defendant by the family for establishing Ghee shop but after partition and after purchase by the plaintiff of the shares of two co-sharers, the need for restoring the said passage/opening in the southern portion, at present the suit premises used as shop by the defendant as tenant, has arisen. The plaintiff has also averred that she has got no other independent passage/opening for ingress and egress in her purchased portion in the buil