(1.) The respondents/landlord on 26/8/2016, had filed the release application under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, seeking release of the tenement shop as described at the foot of the plaint constituting to be of two khani shop facing South, situated at Vishnughat, Haridwar, the precincts of which has been more particularly described at the foot of the release application.
(2.) The landlord in the release application has expressed the need in its para 6 and in order to dilute the plea of bonafide necessity of the petitioner/tenant, the details of their effective engagement has been detailed and pleaded in para 10 of the release application. The release application was contested by the defendant/tenant by filing written statement in August 2018, attempting to deny the bonafide need, but however the fact pleaded in para 10, about tenants profitable engagement was not a fact which was specifically denied in the response given in the written statement and particularly a very vague answer has been given in relation to the pleadings raised in para 10 of the release application. Apart from it, there is no other plea in the written statement, that the petitioner/tenant after the institution of the release application, had ever made any efforts to look for any alternative accommodation, nor any such evidence as such has been laid by him in the proceedings before both the courts below.
(3.) Consequently, the learned prescribed authority while considering the rival contentions and after dealing with the evidence of the parties had recorded a finding in para 23 of the judgment, that in fact, the need of the petitioner/tenant is not bonafide, for the reason being, that all the respondents/tenants, who are already profitably engaged in their respective fields and the details of the respective engagement has been recorded in para 23 of the judgment of the prescribed authority, which commensurates to the pleadings raised in para 10 of the release application.