ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL (CHOYAS) Vs. SATYA KUMAR CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant/ defendant and Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

(2.) Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Amin's report dated 16.11.2016 has not been considered by the Appellate Court and the bona fide need was not proved by the respondent plaintiff and yet the Appellate Court has baselessly passed the impugned appellate order dated 01.05.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-appellant/ defendant. He submits that the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 24.08.2009 under Section 21(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 directing the petitioner-appellant/ defendant to vacate the garage in question, is wholly illegal and therefore, deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that garage was let out by the plaintiff-respondent in the event that he had no car but admittedly he purchased a car subsequently for which the garage was needed to keep it and thus, there was bona fide need which was approved by the plaintiff respondent. He submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. He further submits that the Amin Commissioner has also found that the respondent-plaintiff is in the need of tenanted garage in question and he has no garage in the building in question to keep his car.