RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. YATINDRA NATH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the respondent-landlord. He is doing the business of photography in the shop in dispute. THE respondent-landlord filed P. A. Suit No. 13/1997, Yatindra Nath Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar, before the prescribed authority, Etawah, under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for ejectment and release of the shop in dispute on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship, inter alia, that he has two sons and two daughters. THE elder son is in service and has been married while the younger son has passed LL.B. Examination and has been registered with Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh for practise and wants to practice with his father as an Income Tax Advocate, but his office admeasuring 8 feet x 7 feet is too small to accommodate two advocates. THE prescribed authority allowed the suit vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2004 and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the shop in dispute within two months.

(3.) NO other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.