- (1.) The following concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by authorities below against the petitioner, who was a tenant :- 1. The need of respondent No. 3 is bonafide. 2. After comparing the hardship, it was found that in case if the garage was not released, greater hardship would be caused to the landlord.
(2.) The petitioner was a tenant of the accommodation which is in the nature of a garage. It was let out to him on 6.4.1978 at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month as rent. At that time, the landlord did not own and possess any car. The accommodation was let out to the petitioner to use it as a godown.
(3.) The respondent No. 3 who is the landlord, is having a degree of D. Lit. He is working as Reader in Education Department. He purchased a Fiat car and then made a request to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation so that he may keep his car there. The petitioner gave (sic) months, but he did not keep his promise.;