The trial companyrt dismissed the suit on July 2, 1962, holding that the premises were number reasonably and bona fide required by the respondent.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 22 6 72 of the Bombay High Court in Special Application No.
That led to the application under Article 227 of the Consti tution before the High Court at the instance of the landlord.
R. Zaiwala, K. J. John and J. S. Sinha for the Appellant.
S. Desai, P. B. Agarwala and B. R. Agarwala for Respondent No.
from the original tenant, Messrs United Tube Hardware Co. The tenancy is in respect of the premises being Shop No.
1 on the ground floor of the building known as Asghar Manzil at 146, Nagdevi Street, Bombay, predominantly a locality for the business of hardwares and pipe fitting.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4271 of 1959 dismissing the respondents suit.
1441 of 1968.
The entire property has been let out by the respondent to different persons.
The other grounds, namely, of subletting and irregular payment of rent were given up.
The dimensions of the suit premises are 51 9 63 feet.
The companyrt also held that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if the decree in ejectment were passed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and decree of February 29,1968, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay by which it affirmed the earlier decree of July 22, 1962, of the Small Causes Court at Bombay by which it affirmed the earlier decree of July 22, 1962, of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Suit No.
The Manzil has a ground floor and three other storeys.
It is number necessary to describe the history of the assignment of the tenancy as well as the transfer of the ownership of the premises to the first respondent from his father who was the original landlord under which another party companytinued as tenant till May 1, 195 1, when the present appellant became the tenant by purchasing the goodwill and the tenancy rights of the shop along with the stock in trade, furniture, fixture, etc.,
There is numberdispute in this appeal that the appellant is the tenant and the first respondent is the landlord.
The appellant carries on the business of hardware and pipe fitting in this shop.
1725 of 1972.
The respondents appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court met with the same fate and the findings of the trial companyrt were affirmed.
