SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendant tenant/ petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlady/respondent: Questions Involved:
(2.) Two questions involved in this writ petition are: Firstly, whether a rent case filed without separately impleading partner of the tenant firm is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party and, Secondly, whether appellate court has committed a manifest error of law to dismiss the appeal on the finding of bona fide need of the son of the landlady whereas in the release application the landlady has set up her bona fide need for the disputed shop. Facts:
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that it is admitted to the parties that the disputed shop is owned by the respondent-landlady. It was originally owned by her husband Sri Surendra Nath Sharma, who had inducted the defendant-petitioner as tenant in the year 1986. Subsequently, Sri Surendra Nath Sharma died. The disputed shop was inherited by the plaintiff-landlady/respondent. She filed a P.A. Case No.15 of 2014 under Section 21(1)(a) for her bona fide need of the disputed shop. In the release application the description of the respondent has given as under: ;