- (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners who claims to be tenants of the accommodation in dispute and Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1-landlady. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad, whereby the release application filed by the respondent-landlady for need of her son has been allowed and tenanted accommodation under House No. 52, Johnsenganj in possession of the petitioner-tenant has been directed to be released. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 1.5.2010 passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit today annexing thereto a photostat copy of an alleged notary agreement entered into by the respondent-landlady with a third party relating to the house in question.
(3.) The first submission of Sri Verma is that when the respondent-landlady is selling the house in question as is apparent from the notary agreement the bona fide need set up by the landlady for her son is clearly not made out.;