Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) In January 1982, the landlord retired from a Government Service and since then is unemployed. He sought release of the premises, which are occupied by Moti Lal Sharma, the tenant, and petitioner before this Court. Consequent upon his retirement the plea before the Prescribed Authority in seeking release of the accommodation was basically, to augment income over and above the pension, which the landlord was receiving. Thus, the need for the shop to have a business of his own toward off financial worries after retirement.
(2.) In his defence the tenant-petitioner contended that he ran a business as a goldsmith from the premises in dispute and the landlord did not have need for these premises. He contended, that the landlord could have no financial worries and this plea of the landlord was not bona fide, as his children were working and he had sufficient monies available to him from his pension and the income of his children.
(3.) The landlord answered this plea by placing on record that there is no vocation of goldsmith, which the tenant carries on from the shop in question as it was closed most of the time. The landlord submitted that the tenant was profitely engaged as a goldsmith for a substantial part of the year with a firm in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, known as Messrs Mehta Singh and Sons Jewellers.;