MOHIUDDIN Vs. MOHD. SHAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Nirkhi Advocate for the contesting respondent/land­lord.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged which are on record.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that the property in question was sold to the landlord by real sister of maternal grandmother and this was with a specific purpose of creating an artificial need so that the tenant can be evicted. The next argument is that the trial Court specifically placed reliance on the judg­ment of Rent Appeal No.78 of 1992-Smt. Razia Khatoon v. Mohd. Meraj @ Rajjan in support of his argument. The appellate Court in the said release case allowed the rent appeal of the tenant coming to a conclusion that it was not bonafidely required and comparative hardship is also not in favour of Mohd. Meraj. Emphatic submission is that the appellate Court did not record its finding as to why the findings of the trial Court in respect of this decision, a certified copy of which has been placed before me, was completely overlooked while allowing the appeal. Besides, a perusal of the said judgment of Rent Appeal No.78 of 1992 clearly demonstrate that an artificial need was created by the said landlord and so called sale and purchase of the disputed property by the present landlord is only to somehow evict the tenant.