A K CONFECTIONERS Vs. BHAJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, Respondent/landlady has sought eviction of the Petitioner/tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the same is required by her for running a boutique. Both the Courts below gave a finding of fact that the premises indeed is required by the landlady. The contention raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that after the death of her husband, she got Rs. 27,00,000/ - as compensation and having two daughters, who are married and settled abroad and her mother-in-law is not dependent upon her, thus, there is no need for her to run the business of boutique, was rejected.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent has reiterated same arguments before this Court, as were raised before both the Courts below, on the observation made that a successful woman can have an ambition to become an entrepreneur. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he will not be able to dislodge the observation made, in view of the concurrent findings, recorded by both the Courts below.

(3.) At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he will not press the present petition in case sufficient time is granted to him to make an alternative arrangement. He further submits that the Petitioner is running a confectionery shop, having a huge inventory for which sufficient time is required to clear the goods.