KRISHNA HARI TIWARI Vs. KM SHARATTAMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pavan Kumar, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings, both on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. On a perusal of the orders it is apparent that said findings are based upon consideration of material evidence on record. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that additional evidence led at the appellate stage has not been considered by the Appellate Authority is not borne out from the record, rather it is contrary to the record. The Appellate Authority has dealt with the additional evidence led before it and even after consideration of the same has recorded the findings that the bona fide need of the landlord still survives and further that landlord would suffer greater hardship in case the premises were not released.

(2.) In view of the above I do not find any merit in the petition warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

(3.) Petition is accordingly dismissed.