HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1123 of 2006 (M/S) Sri Prem Chand Jain S/o late Sri Lal Chand Jain … Petitioner Versus The Addl. District Judge and others …. Respondents AND Writ Petition No.1124 of 2006 (M/S) Sri Prem Chand Jain S/o late Sri Lal Chand Jain … Petitioner Versus The Addl. District Judge and others …. Respondents Dated:- 26th August, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. S. K. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 9. 2. This is a landlord’s petition having lost from both the courts below for the release of the shop in question. It transpires that the landlord filed a release application alleging that he had purchased the property in question in the year 1987 and that he now requires the shop in order to set up a business for his son Anil. The release application was resisted by the tenant, who alleged that there was no need to set up a business for his son Anil, who was 40 years of age and who was already doing the business of a contractor, apart from helping the existing business of the landlord. 3. The prescribed authority, upon considering the material evidence brought on the record, held that the even though the landlord’s son was about 40 years of age and was doing the business of contractor, nonetheless, the need of the landlord to set the business for his son was bonafide and that there was a requirement. However, the prescribed authority rejected the claim of the landlord on the ground that the comparative hardship was more in favour of the tenant than in favour of the landlord and, consequently, rejected the application for the release of the shop. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority, filed a miscellaneous appeal. The tenant, being aggrieved by the findings with regard to the bonafide need of the landlord also filed an appeal. Both the appeals were heard together and the appeal of the landlord was rejected, whereas the appeal of the tenant was allowed and the trial court held that the bonafide need of the landlord did not exist. The petitioner, being aggrieved has filed the present two writ petitions against the same order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that concurrent findings have been given by the court below indicating that the landlord has other properties in the city, which could be utilised to set up the business for his son Anil. The court below has also found that the tenant would face more hardship if he had to vacate the shop in question, whereas the landlord has other accommodation available with him to set up a business for his son and consequently held tat the comparative hardship was more in favour of the tenant than in favour of the landlord. 6. The findings of the courts below that there exists alternate accommodation for the landlord has not specifically been challenged in the writ petition nor the said findings given by the courts below are perverse. Consequently, this court is not inclined to reappraise the evidence at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned orders. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. 3 (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 26.08.2010 LSR