- (1.) A mention was made in the morning seeking permission for filing of the fresh writ petition, today. It was also mentioned that there is urgency in the matter and the petition may be entertained today, itself. The permission was granted and this is how, the writ petition has come before this Court today. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Adil Khan. It is a rent petition. The petitioners have lost from both the Courts. There are concurrent findings of fact. The bona-fide need of the landlord has been upheld and the petitioners' eviction has been ordered. The prescribed authority passed the order for delivery of possession, in which warrants have been issued, hence the urgency.
(2.) Sri Mohd. Arif Khan has passionately argued for quite some time. He has argued that the need of the land lord is not bona-fide and genuine; the orders passed by the Lower Courts are factually incorrect; and the Court may stay their eviction.
(3.) The main question involved in this petition rests upon the need of the land lord. Opposite parties No. 2 to 67 had made an application for release of the shop in their favour, which was contested to by filing of the written statement by the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties, have allowed the application and thus released the shop in question in favour of the opposite parties. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the appeal, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 7.1.2012. The petitioners could not substantiate their case before the Courts below and since the petitioners have lost from both the Courts; there are concurrent findings of fact based on entire facts and circumstances of the case and the bona-fide need of the land lord has been decided in favour of opposite parties No. 2 to 7, the petitioners' eviction has rightly been ordered.;