SHIV RAJ SINGH Vs. KAMLA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief:

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioner submits that during the pendency of the P.A. Case, the landlady has sold one house bearing Municipal No.143/3 (new No.230 and thereafter new No.236) Masihaganj, Sipari Bazar, Jhansi, measuring 346.25 sq. feet. The alleged tenanted house in which she is residing, is in fact the house owned by her. Therefore, the bonafide need was not established by her. That apart her daughter-in-law, Sumegha Nagar, wife of Ashwani Srivastava has received a plot in village Lahargird by gift from her parents and for this reason also there was no bonafide need for the disputed house. Both the courts below have completely ignored these material evidences and erroneously passed the impugned judgments. He submits that since during pendency of the P.A. Case the plaintiff-landlady/respondent has sold the aforesaid house measuring 346 sq. feet and as such in view of the judgment of this Court dated 27.8.2012 in Writ - A No.13621 of 2003, Jagdish Prasad Barnwal Vs. Gopal Prasad Misra Alias Jagdish Prasad Pandey and others, bonafide need can not be said to have been established by her. The comparative hardship is also not in favour of the landlady. He, therefore, prays that the Writ Petition may be allowed and both the impugned judgments and decree may be set aside.