LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-121

ANAND KISHOR Vs. LAXMI KANT SHUKLA

Decided On January 31, 2011
AN AND KISHOR Appellant
V/S
LAXMI KANT SHUKLA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, senior counsel assistant by Sri Saurabh Jain, counsel for tenant petitioners, Sri M.K. Gupta appearing for the landlord respondent and perused the record.

(2.) THIS petition challenges the validity and correctness of the judment and order dated 25.10.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Pilibhit in P.A. case No. 3 of 1999 as well as judgment and order dated 13.1.2011 passed by the appellate authority/Additional District Judge, Pilibhit dismissing P.A. Appeal No. 26 of 2008, appended as annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition*. The impugned orders have been challenged on the ground that while dismissing the appeal, the appellate Court has not taken notice of the judgment in respect of another shop under the tenancy of Sri Satish, against whom similar another release application was filed on same grounds. It is stated that in the release application filed against Sri Satish, the Court had recorded a finding that landlord respondent is aged about 70 years and it is not possible for him to carry on trade, as such his

(3.) IT is vehemently argued by the counsel for respondent landlord that age can never be a factor to repel contention of bona fide need as the business is to be done through servants and only investment is to be made by the landlord. In this regard, he has relied upon decision of this Court rendered in Jai Raj Agarwal v. Bhola Nath Kappor and others, 2005(3) ARC 417.