BISHAMBHAR NATH Vs. VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the appellate authority dated 17-11-1992 whereby the appeal was allowed and the release application filed by the landlord-petitioner was rejected. The landlord-petitioner filed an ap plication for release of the disputed shop with the allegations that his sons Rajendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar will carry on business of general merchandise in the disputed shop. They have no other shop to carry on business. The application was contested by the tenant- respondent. The Prescribed Authority, on consideration of material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the need of the petitioner to settle his sons was bona fide and allowed the application by his order dated 9-8-1991. The tenant-respondent preferred an appeal against the said order. The appel late authority found that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine but he took the view that the respondent was a 'hakim' and carrying on medical practice for the last 40 years and if he is evicted, he would suffer a greater hardship. The ap peal was allowed and the application was rejected by the impugned order dated 17-11-1992. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) 1 have heard S/sri Pankaj Naqvi and Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respon dent.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition respondent No. 2 has also expired. The appellate authority has to consider every aspect of the matter while considering the hardship of both the parties.