- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent caveator. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent judgments dated 16th December, 2005 and 20th March, 2010 by which the release application of the respondent landlords has been allowed by both the Courts below.
(2.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the landlords have another house at Pandu Nagar and therefore their need was not genuine and bona fide.
(3.) No doubt premises No. 117-H-2/101 situated at Pandu Nagar is a residential house but it is in the name of the father of the landlords. Both the Courts below have found that both the landlords are married and have children and they have their independent business which is being run from one of the shops situated in the disputed building. It has further been found that in the house of Pandu Nagar, apart from the father, several tenants were in occupation thereon and apart from the disputed premises, none of the two landlords had any other accommodation in the City. This is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with at this stage.;