- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent-caveator. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 11.5.2009 and 25.1.2010 by which the release application of the respondent-landlord has been allowed by both the Courts below.
(2.) The respondents-landlords filed an application for release against the petitioner-tenant inter alia with the allegation that they had purchased the disputed shop vide registered sale-deed dated 10.2.2003 wherein the petitioner was carrying on his business as a tenant at Rs. 50/- per month. It was further alleged that they had studied up to class VI and despite efforts, were unable to find any service and as they know the work of goldsmith and therefore they want to start their business of goldsmith in the disputed premises as they had no other shop to start their business. It was further alleged that the tenant is an old man who generally keeps the shop locked.
(3.) The petitioner-tenant contested the application, inter alia with the allegation that both the landlords were gainfully employed in money lending business and the situation of the shop was such that the business of goldsmith cannot be run from it and therefore neither the need was genuine nor pressing and in fact the disputed shop was the only livelihood of his family members and therefore in case he is evicted he would suffer greater hardship.;