MOHAMMAD ISLAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Pt. K.K. Dubey, Advocate for petitioner and Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 3/1.

(2.) THE Prescribed Authority having considered the above submissions, found that need of landlord is bona fide and comparative hardship also lie in his favour and, therefore, allowed the application. The same has been confirmed in appeal also.

(3.) FROM the record it appears that there were four shops which became available to landlord long back but in order to meet household expanses, business and also the medical treatment of wife of Sri Suresh Chandra Agrawal, four shops were sold by him on 28.10.1995, 09.07.1997, 08.10.1997 and 14.04.2001. These facts have not been disputed and the courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding. Wife of Late Sri Suresh Chandra Agrawal was suffering from Cancer. He himself was suffering from renal failure. Moreover marriage of three sisters of substituted landlord, i.e., Sri Sachin Agrawal were also due at that time. Having not disputed these facts it cannot be said that sale of shops by landlord in 1995 -2001 was not genuine.