JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants who have preferred the appeal against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 20 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the plaintiff’s Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2002 decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, has been set aside.

2. The parties shall be referred to their placement in the original suit and will include their legal representatives.

3. The plaintiff landlady Bibi Sagirunnisha brought the suit against the tenants for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and on the ground of bonafide personal necessity. It has been averred by the plaintiff that there was default in payment of rent of Rs.600/- per month since April, 2001. The landlady was running a shop adjacent to the tenanted premise and wanted to widen and enlarge the shop for its requirement.

4. The case of the defendant is that there had been no default in payment of rent and the plaintiff-respondent had no bonafide need for the shop in question and the suit was only filed for an additional salami of Rs.1,00,000/- and to enhance the monthly rent from Rs.600/- to Rs.2000/-. It has been further pleaded that the shop in question was initially constructed by the ap