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 number intend to practice law.
Landlords appeal before the appellate authority failed and the finding recorded by the trial companyrt of the effect that the need of the landlord was number bona fide or genuine was companyfirmed.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 13th September, 1996.
The landlord thereupon filed a second appeal in the High Court.
By the impugned order the companycurrent findings of fact were set aside by the learned Single of the High Court in second appeal.
The trial companyrt after framing issues and recording evidence came to the companyclusion that the need of the landlord was number genuine or bonafide.
The premises had been let out by the predecessor in interest of the present respondent landlord in 1968.
The suit was resisted.
The suit was dismissed.
Appellant is the tenant.
Respondent is the landlord.
