GIRISH KUMAR Vs. KALI CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The landlord petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the appellate court in rent appeal rejecting release application of the landlord-petitioner for release of shop in question on the point of sufficient alternative accommodation already available with him and thus reversing the judgment of the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while on the point of bona fide need both the courts below have concurred but since there was a mention of 5th shop on the back of the building of the landlord in the assessment register, the appellate court erred in directing the landlord to utilize that accommodation of 5th shop for his personal need. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 5th shop is not a shop itself but an open entry in the back room through that shutter which is there. It is further submitted that once bona fide need is established of the landlord to get the release application granted, the court cannot direct the landlord to adjust himself in another shop to permit continuance of tenancy of the shop in question in favour of the tenant. It is also submitted that landlord is the sole person to determine his need and decide as to how he wants his son to be settled. It is argued that none of the shops have been found to be vacant one except the accommodation which is allegedly called as 5th shop.