- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner-tenant has preferred this writ petition to challenge the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Tribunal 28.3.2006 as well as the appellate order dated 31.3.2010. Both the courts below concurrently held that suit premises is required by the applicant-landlord for the personal bonafide necessaity so as to run the business of grand-son of the landlord. The petitioner-tenant has preferred this writ petition to challenge the above two orders with alternative prayer that since there is a space available on the first floor, therefore, if that cannot be utilized by the landlord that upper floor premises may be given to the petitioner-tenant.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in fact there is no room or any hall over the shop in disput, but it is open roof only. Be it as it may be once the landlord proved is ground for eviction then tenant will have to vacate the premises. The orders of the two courts below have been challenged only on the ground of facts and there is no error of jurisdiction or error of law or even error of law in the orders passed. The orders have been passed after appreciation of facts by both the courts below.;