2.

GROUNDS

A) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court pleased to dismiss the Civil Misc. Writ
Petition on the erroneous assumptions of law and facts.

B) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that how the
House No. 161/1 property situated at Mukaryana Jhansi was held as a residential

property when the property was not get traversed by the

Prescribed Authority nor by the Appellate Court.

C) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that how the
property of 2000 sq ft which is numbered as 197 situated at Old Pasrat, Jhansi

and shop no. 137 situated in Bisati Bazar, Jhansi, was said as Masjid property by

the respondent and the same was admitted by the Prescribed Authority when

no Rent Receipts/Rent Agreement was filed by the respondent and when it was

not get traversed by any

Authority.

D) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider Section 34(1) of

U.P Act 13 of 1972 by not appointing a local commissioner to get the property

traversed with a view that it cannot be done in cases under U.P Act 13 of 1972

which is a wrongful interpretation of law resulting in complete failure of justice.

E) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to appreciate that
respondent/landlord has flourishing business and income while

tenant/petitioner will be put to substantial loss if dislodged. Hardship of tenant

is greater.

F) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider that the respondent
is a rich man and has very much accommodation and all sons of

landlord/respondent are running their business separately hence bonafide need

and comparative hardship doesn’t lie in his favour.

G) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider the view taken by
this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Chirajan Burman Vs Om Prakash

Bajoria & Ors

reported at (2001) SAR (Civil) 865, “Eviction Suit for personal

requirement, the disputed shop is very small shop and landlord is a

propertied person having various residential and non-residential

buildings and therefore, did not reasonably require the premises in

good faith for their occupation” The same position prevails here.

H) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider that the

Prescribed Authority cannot allow the release application on the ground that

tenant has not searched out for any other shop ignoring the law that there exists

a bonafide need of the respondent like in

 1999 Manju Cases, Supreme Court P.581, Sudha Agarwal Vs X Additional
District Judge wherein it is observed that Landlord has to prove his need to be
bonafide one and cannot derive any benefit of absence of defence of tenant.

I) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider Rule 16(2) of U.P
Act 13 of 1972 which stipulated

that the greater the period since when

tenant/petitioner has been carrying on business in that building the less the
justification for allowing the release application and the same case is here the
petitioner is carrying on the business since a long time.
J) BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider that
respondent/landlord was cherishing the desire only to uproot the

tenant/petitioner. With the malafide intention/motive the release application

was filed. The respondent has no bonafide and genuine need nor could he proves

his need as bonafide and genuine.