SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. CHANDRA BHAN PALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Chaudhary Subhash Kumar Advocate for the petitioners-tenants and Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, Advocate for respondent-landlord. The Trial Court dismissed P.A. Case No. 1 of 1997 vide judgment dated 12.3.2008 on the ground that the applicant-landlord got four shops newly constructed in 2001-02 and let out the same to Sri Deen Dayal, Mangli Prasad Ashok Kumar Agrawal and Sri Santosh Kumar. Since these shops became available to landlord in 2001-02 in which he could have allowed his son to start business, if his need was bona fide, but instead he let out those shops to somebody else, which means that his need was not bona fide and the application, therefore, was accordingly rejected.

(2.) The Appellate Court has virtually declined to give any credit to aforesaid findings of Trial Court only on the ground that petitioners-tenant did not prove that the persons who were shown in possession of newly constructed shops by respondent-landlord were tenants therein and thereafter it has proceed to consider the matter on merits ignoring availability of those four shops to land-ford In my view this approach of Appellate Court is patently fallacious and illegal.

(3.) so far as construction of four new shops in 2001-02 and their availability with landlord was not found disputed. However, that being so, whether persons who were named by petitioners to be the subsequent tenants in whose shops were actually let out those shops or not, that would make no difference since that fact remains that after new construction of those shops, they were available to landlord in which he could have allowed his son to commence his business but instead doing so, he allowed those shops to be possessed by other persons and continued to contest for ejectment of petitioners from shop in question only on the ground of personal need. Whether those shops were given in possession of others as a tenant or otherwise, would make no difference since it shows conduct of respondent-landlord that they were available to him in which his son could have been allowed to do business but he did not do so, meaning thereby his need was not bona fide. In my view the Lower Appellate Court has completely misdirected itself in ignoring this aspect of the matter in absolutely illegal manner. Therefore, the judgment of Lower Appellate Court cannot sustain.