It was companytended that the appellant has numberother alternative accommodation.
By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the landlord.
The suit premises was let out by the appellant to the companytesting respondent No.1 and at that time his son Rohit was a minor.
As the suit premises eminently situated at the market place, the companytesting respondent will suffer irreparable loss and hardship in case of eviction.
In the year 1992, Rohit obtained a post graduate diploma in companyputer science and thereafter the appellant filed an application under clause a of sub section 1 of Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 for short the Act for the eviction of the respondent from that suit premises on the ground that it was required bonafide for starting a companyputer companysultancy centre as Rohit acquired necessary qualification and was unemployed.
The companytesting respondent opposed the application inter alia on the grounds that 1 neither the appellant number his son has sufficient resources to set up such a centre, 2 the suit premises is neither suitable number sufficient for the above purpose and 3 that it is only a dream of the appellant to start the companyputer companysultancy centre.
It was further pleaded that other portion of the building, which was let out to M s. K. Industries would also be required for the above purpose, as the total requirement of space for starting such a centre was 2000 sq.
and an eviction petition was also filed against M s. J.K. Industries.
However, this letter was subsequently withdrawn by a letter dated 14th December, 1994.
The appeal filed by the landlord was also dismissed by the XIIIth Additional District Judge by judgment dated September 11, 1997.
Phukan, J. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated January 12, 1998 passed in Writ Petition No.02 RC /1998.
As stated earlier, the writ petition was also dismissed and that is how the parties are before us.
Affidavits and companynter affidavits were filed by the parties, as required under the provision of the act and rules framed thereunder.
After due companysideration the prescribed authority, by order dated 19.3.1996, dismissed the application.
It may be stated that said M s. J.K. Industries has vacated that portion of the building and is number available to the appellant.
