Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chaudhary Subhash, learned counsel for respondent No.2/1 to 2/4. Other respondents No.3 to 7 are son and daughters of late Sadhu Ram i.e. father of petitioner and are proforma respondents.
(2.) The dispute relates to shop No.8/14, Mohalla Gopalganj, Orai, District Jalaun situated on the ground floor. The landlord filed Rent Case No.2 of 1991 for release of property in dispute wherein he intend to settle his son Sunil Kumar Gupta, who is an engineer in Electronics and intend to start business of electronic goods.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority dismissed the rent case recording findings against the landlord in respect to the bona fide personal need and comparative hardship but the Appellate Court in Rent Appeal No.6 of 1994 has set aside the judgment of Prescribed Authority and allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 16.12.1996 impugned in this writ petition. Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the entire judgment, Appellate Court has discussed only the question of personal need of landlord being bona fide and genuine but except referring some authorities, he has not gone into the question of comparative hardship of the parties and therefore, the impugned appellate judgment does not contain any findings on the question of comparative hardship between the petitioner tenant and respondent No.2 landlord.;