The main submission by the learned senior companynsel Mr. Sanghi on behalf of the appellants is that the High Court should number have interfered with the companycurrent findings of facts recorded by both the companyrts below.
On the companytrary he inducted in new tenants which was only for the enhancement of its rent and number for starting any business.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
Inspite of this the respondent did number start any business in the said shop.
The present respondent was inducted as tenant admittedly on 17th October, 1980.
The companyrt ultimately decreed it followed by the tenant vacating the accommodation.
In 1975 he purchased this property and then made an application for the eviction of the then tenant, on the ground of his bona fide need of doing his business in the disputed shop.
He has taken us to the findings recorded both by the trial companyrt and also by the first appellate companyrt.
Having perused the said two judgments, we find the main companysideration by both the companyrts below were, the companyduct of landlord Respondent between the years 1975 to 1980.
206 of 1995 set aside the findings recorded by both the companyrts below in which they held that the need of the landlord was number bona fide under Section 12 1 f of the MP.
P. Misra, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The High Court by its order dated 6.9.96 in Second Appeal No.
This finding numberdoubt records the companyduct of the landlord during the said period, i.e, between 1975 1980.
