SHEELCHAND Vs. PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 13th September, 1996.

(2.) Appellant is the tenant. Respondent is the landlord. The premises had been let out by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent-landlord in 1968. The suit for eviction was filed against the tenant by the respondent-landlord on various grounds including the ground that he required the suit premises for his bona fide personal need for starting his business. It was the case of the respondent-landlord that though he was an advocate, he wanted the suit shop for starting his business of a 'General Store' as he did not intend to practice law. The suit was resisted. The trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was not genuine or bona fide. The suit was dismissed. Landlord's appeal before the appellate authority failed and the finding recorded by the trial Court to the effect that the need of the landlord was not bona fide or genuine was confirmed. The landlord thereupon filed a second appeal in the High Court. By the impugned order the concurrent findings of fact were set aside by the learned single (Judge) of the High Court in second appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.