SATYA NARAIN Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant in this case is a tenant against whom the respondent-landlord has moved a suit for eviction principally on the ground that landlord required the tenanted premises for his own use bona fide. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide. But the Appellate Court allowed and decreed the suit. In a Second Appeal filed by the tenant learned Single Judge of the high Court after upholding the finding regarding the bona fide need of the landlord went into the question of comparative hardship. While dealing with that aspect learned Single Judge has observed thus:

(3.) Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the high Court principally on the ground that learned Single Judge had committed an obvious mistake by referring to the facts of another case which he happened to hear earlier. In support of the said contention learned Counsel produced the judgment rendered by the same learned single Judge in Mitu Lal v. Kundan Lal in Second Appeal 340/96 (the judgment dated 8.9.97). We are extracting the following passage from the aforesaid judgment: