BHAGWAT PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. RADHA RAMAN AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed a release application being P.A. Case No. 16 of 2008 for release of a shop situated at Kaushi Kala, Biharipura, Mathura. The bonafide need set up by the respondent-landlord was that the petitioner an employee in the Directorate of Education, New Delhi, superannuated on 31 December 2004, thereafter, the respondent registered himself as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi on 30 April 2005. Since then the respondent-landlord is residing at Kosi Kalan, Mathura and is interested in setting up a business of Tax Consultancy for which the disputed shop is needed. The petitioner/tenant contested by filing objections, wherein, it was stated that the respondent has not disclosed the material fact that he has other houses in Delhi and is a permanent resident of Delhi along with his family, a malafide and illusory need has been set up, the respondent wants to sell the shop in question. There is a vacant room on the first floor of the shop in question which would suffice the need of the respondent-landlord.

(2.) The Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 18 January 2012 allowed the release application. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act being P.A. Appeal No. 4 of 2012 which was dismissed on 4 March 2015. Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is assailing the aforementioned orders.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority committed serious error of fact and law in holding the need of the respondent-landlord bonafide and pressing. The respondent/landlord was a permanent resident of the Delhi and a practicing lawyer in Delhi Courts, further it is contended that the authorities below have failed to consider the evidence on record while deciding the question of comparative hardship.