SHEO SHANKAR Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was allowed ex -parte by me on 6.1.2006 as no one had appeared on behalf of respondent inspite of sufficient service when the writ petition was heard. Thereafter re -hearing/restoration application was filed which was allowed on 15.9.2006 and writ petition was restored and on the same date arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties on merit were also heard. The first three paragraphs of the judgment dated 6.1.2006 containing necessary facts are reproduced below: - -

(2.) AS far as judgment of the Appellate Court is concerned, it is erroneous in law in as much as at the time when judgment was delivered need of the landlord was quite bonafide and comparative hardship also lay in his favour. Tenant who is a Government servant had been transferred to Lucknow. Tenant did not show that he made any effort to search alternative accommodation. Need of the landlord for residential purposes for two of his sons and to settle those two sons in business was quite bonafide.

(3.) AS far as acquisition of shop in Mohalla Jafra Bazar by one of the sons of original landlord is concerned learned Counsel for the landlord has categorically stated that the said shop is on rent with him. Nothing specific has been stated in any of the affidavits filed by the tenants as to how son of the original landlord is owner of the said shop. In absence of any evidence to that effect ownership of one of the sons of original landlord of the shop in Jafra Bazar claimed by the tenant cannot be accepted.