ASHOK KUMAR Vs. HAR BHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Both the courts below have recorded the finding that shop in question of the son of the landlord is only 9.x10"ft. x 6.3"ft.The need set up in the release application is for expansion of the shop in which the landlord's son is doing ply-board business. There is a Commissioner report which indicates that the shop of the landlord's sons is too small to keep the stock of the business being carried on by him. The bonafide need of landlord is found genuine and pressing.

(3.) Challenging the finding recorded by both the courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of fact is against the evidence on record. The pleadings in the written statement is that the landlord is in occupation of the godowns in the same premises has not been considered.Moreover, a shop has been released in the name of landlord in the Rent Case no. 5 of 2010 and as such the need set up in the instant release application has been satisfied.