VIRENDRA RAMA Vs. SH. BANGALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's Writ petition. The opposite sides are landlords. An application under Sec. 21(1)(a) was filed on behalf of the landlord seeking possession of the shop in the tenancy of the present petitioner on the ground of their alleged needs. The prescribed authority held that there was no bona fide need of the landlord and further held that comparative need of the tenant was greater and the application was rejected. The landlord then preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of the prescribed authority was reversed and the appellate court held that there is a bona fide need of the landlord and on consideration of comparative need the need of the landlord was found greater and the tenant can well shift his business.

(2.) The finding of the appellate court is challenged in this writ petition etc. on various grounds.

(3.) It would appear that respondents 1 and 2 were admittedly employed in R.K. Plastic at Agra on certain emoluments. Their allegation is that the industry has ceased functioning and they are unemployed. Their further allegation is that they want to start from goods shop in the premises occupied by the petitioner as tenant and are in bona fide need of I it. A mention was also made of the various liabilities of the family viz. marriage of sister, payment of rent of the rented house at Agra so on and so forth. So far this aspect is concerned the petitioner's stand was that actually it is just a devise to have the shop vacated and the landlord has sufficient land in the rural area with considerable income and they are not genuinely desirous at all for having an from goods shop at Etah and such stand has been taken mala-fide, simply to have the shop vacated.