- (1.) This petition has been filed against the concurrent orders of the Courts below dismissing the petition for ejectment filed by the petitioners. The case set up by both the petitioners was that they and their third brother-respondent No.2 need the demised shop to set up a business. Both the Courts below noticed that the petitioners had retired from service and were living in Noida/Delhi and they were well settled and consequently the likelihood that they want to come back to start a business was slim and thus, held that their need was not bona fide.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that approach of the Courts below was highly pedantic and they erred in coming to the conclusion that it was for the landlord to prove his bona fide need beyond a reasonable doubt whereas the law is that in a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity, there is an essential presumption in favour of the landlord which has to be rebutted by the tenant. Learned counsel has further argued that in this case both the petitioners appeared and testified about their bona fide need and the findings given by both the Courts below are highly speculative.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has defended the orders of Courts below. He has pointed out that in the circumstances of the case and what has been brought in evidence, the Courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that need of the petitioners was not genuine.;