BUDDHAN LAL Vs. MAHENDRA NATH GUPTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents.

(2.) The main ground of challenge put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the orders of release is that both the Courts below had erred in concluding that the disputed accommodation was leased out in the year 1950 for commercial purpose. The basis of arriving at this conclusion is the allotment order dated 22.11.1950 which is in the name of two persons namely Ram Dayal and Sanktha Prasad. The conclusion drawn by the lower appellate court is that as the disputed accommodation was allotted in the name of both father and son jointly, therefore, it appears that it was allotted in the name of firm M/s. Ram Dayal Sanktha Prasad, which was in existence at the relevant point of time. Admittedly, Ram Dayal Sanktha Prasad was the firm in the name of which business was being carried on by the predecessor in interest of the tenant.

(3.) The averments in paragraphs '2' and '3' are as under:-