MOHAMMAD NAIMUDDIN Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD BANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the defendant- tenant/petitioner.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that respondent no.1 is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop in which petitioner is a tenant. The tenant-petitioner as well as plaintiff-landlord both are in the same line of trade i.e. trade of shoes. The plaintiff-landlord/respondent is a physically disabled person. He has only one shop in the disputed house from where he is running his business of retail and wholesale trade with extreme difficulty. Therefore, on the ground of boafide need of the disputed shop, the plaintiffs-respondents filed P.A. Case No.2 of 2006 (Jagdish Prasad Banka Vs. Mohammad Naimuddin @ Munna). Parties led their evidences. It was also brought on record by several evidences that the tenant-petitioner has several shops in the locality. During pendency of the P.A. Case, the tenant-petitioner purchased a commercial house by a registered sale deed dtd. 25/5/2009. When this fact was brought on record then the tenant-petitioner claimed that the said house has been jointly purchased by him and his two brothers. Considering the facts and circumstances and evidences on record, the aforesaid P.A. Case No.02 of 2006 was decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court/Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur, by judgment dtd. 18/4/2016, after recording findings of fact that the plaintiff-landlord is in bonafide need of the disputed shop and comparative hardship is in his favour. Against the aforesaid judgment, the tenant-petitioner filed Rent Appeal No.07 of 2016 (Mohammad Naimuddin @ Munna Vs. Jagdish Prasad Banka) which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dtd. 16/3/2019, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Court No.3 , Gorakhpur. The appellate court also recorded findings of fact that the plaintiff-landlord is in bonafide need of the disputed shop and comparative hardship is in his favour.

(3.) Aggrieved with these two judgments, the tenant-petitioner has filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner submits as under:-