RAJ KUMAR RANGWANI Vs. KALPANA VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present case was remanded back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Rent Appellate Tribunal with the directions to give finding with regard to bonafide need and eviction.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding regarding his bonafide need is wholly perverse once the court reached to the conclusion that there is another property available with the petitioner. Merely by saying that petitioner- tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord for living as well as conducting business, finding has been given, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically directed the appellate court to give finding regarding bonafide need. The word "bonafide" has its own connotation and meaning. The bonafide has to be examined with respect to all the circumstantial aspects. However, it is submitted that the court has not considered all the aspects.