GURBACHAN SINGH DEAD Vs. SALIABI ALIAS BIBUAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil No. 4212 of 1982 is filed by the tenant and Civil no. 4213 of 1982 is filed by the landlord. Both these appeals relate to the same building. The tenant's appeal concerns the upstairs portion of the building which was leased as residential premises, but found to be used by the tenant as a godown. The landlord's appeal concerns the lower portion of the building which was leased as business premises consisting of two shop rooms.

(2.) The trial court accepting the case of the landlord held that the premises were reasonably required by her for her residence as well as for her business which was conducted by her husband during his life and continued by her after his death. This finding was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate court. On a revision filed by the tenant, the High court held that the landlord was in bona fide requirement of both the premises in question, but in respect of the lowerportion of the building consisting of the shop rooms, the High court found comparative hardship in favour of the tenant and against the landlord.

(3.) Mr P. S. Poti, appearing for the landlord, submits that all the three courts had found that the landlord was in bona fide requirement of both the premises. The trial court as well as the first appellate court had further found the question regarding comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. The High court, in revision, interfered with the findings of fact reached by the courts below and held that, notwithstanding the landlord's bona fide requirement of both the premises, the tenant was entitled to win on the ground of comparative hardship in respect of the lower portion of the building. Mr Poti relies on the principles stated by this court in K. A. Anthappai v. Ahammed and contends that the High court was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact rendered by the courts below.