AMIT KUMAR Vs. SUSHILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The release application was filed in the year 2009 by the respondent for the need set up for her son Deeraj Kumar. During pendency of the release application, landlady's elder son Ritesh Kumar had died. The objection filed by the tenant was amended with the assertion that now with the death of one son of the landlady, the shop which he was occupying in the premises in question is available for another son and as such the need set up by the landlady has been satisfied.

(3.) In rebuttal thereto, the landlady filed an affidavit categorically stating therein that she is continuing in the business which was being run by her son Ritesh Kumar with the help of her servants. Her second son Deeraj Kumar wants to settle himself in an independent business who is sitting idle and the landlady wants to augment her earning to meet the need of the family with the business which was being run in the shop earlier occupied by her son Ritesh Kumar. These findings of fact have not been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.