MANISH MEHRA Vs. RAMLAL GUPTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vakatlatnama filed by Shri Atul Dayal on behalf of the respondents be taken on record.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below on bona fide need of the landlord for the shop in question. The challenge is on the ground that there exist a room on the ground floor which can be used for doing business by the landlord. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was rebutted by the landlord with the assertion that the said room is being used as a drawing room to entertain his guests. It has never been used as a shop. In order to establish his assertion, Municipal assessment record i.e. extract of the year 1987-92 paper no. 14/15 was filed by the petitioner which shows that only two shops have been recorded in the premises in question.