PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. MOHD SAIFUL EZAZ ALAM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THE tenant petitioner is challenging the validity and correctness of order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Budaun in R.C.C. no. 1 of 2001 as well as order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the appellate authority in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 2008.

(3.) IT is stated that additional evidence of the petitioner was admitted in evidence by order dated 12.3.2010 but the same has not been considered by the appellate court and if the evidence would have been considered, then it would have been amply proved that there were four new shops available to the respondent landlord in which they could easily carry out their business. However, in this case both the courts below have tried to find out as to whether the tenant petitioner had bonafide need or not. Next contention of the counsel for petitioner is that two shops belonging to family members of the petitioner are occupied by petitioner's brother and mother. According to him, one of the shops was in occupation of his brother - Darshan Kumar and another shop was in occupation of his other brothers- Praveen Kumar and Naresh Kumar and hence the courts below have erred in taking into consideration those two shops occupied by his brothers where the petitioner could shift his business.