.3.
use of the property inasmuch as the
prelnises for oonstructioll of Kalyana V A.T.:: ._
3. Undisputedly the *3 isj%’a. %%%eéh::;a;a&~.:e
institution. The records *
area have come fqrwmfi for
construction of Kalydgétz. the landlord-
institution peufigsp yam i.enam.s.
The various tenants,
mc1uaii;g% it is not in dispuu:
that it is sllfiiciant for the
is a need for him to occupy
he has no other reasonably
In this mater, the landlord
being charimbie mstjtuuon wants to construct
Mantapa for want of public at large. Thus,
A’ the Courts below have rightly held that the
” – “iandlord needs the premist;-:3 far bursa ficie usse. It is also
not in dispute: that the landlord does not have any other
/3
\f'”
reasonably suitable accommodation for wnsuuctipn of
Kaluana Mantapa. The property in Questfaon
purchased by the pctitionerw’It.h the help ”
landlords in the year 1988 Except
no reasonably suitable
for construction of —
4. ‘I’he building fé. issued
to the landlord for; Mantapa.
Except this are sewed and
other tenants Under such
this not find any grumd to
-V _ t findings of both the Courts
the petition is liable no be
dismissed. ‘
gage. it is prayed on behalf of the
I/>
. 5-
premises in QUESHGIL Having regard to the of
the facts and circumstances 6f the case,__
justice would be met if the petigoner x
menths’ time to vacate the fl
foilowing 011161′ is made:-
Petition is dismis ‘ L petitioner is
granted Ithe pminisves in
question, it: regulariy.
. Edi-
Efidger
,4-..l~