Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43616 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2751 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Agarwal Respondent :- Amit Kumar Agarwal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Singh,Umesh Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. No one is present for the respondent(s). 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgement and order dated 26.04.2013, whereby, the application filed for release of the premises by the land lord on the ground of bonafide need was allowed as well as the order dated 20.02.2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed. 3. The fact in brief are that respondent-landlord moved an application seeking the vacation of the premises on the ground of bonafide need, the said was contested by the petitioner- tenant. However, after considering the bonafide need and the comparative hardship, a suit in question was decreed on 26.04.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, an impleadment application was filed by one IIIrd party claiming that he has purchased the property in question, the said application for impleadment was opposed by the petitioner and, ultimately, the impleadment application came to be rejected. Thereafter, the appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal after affirming the findings with regard to the bonafide need and comparative hardship. 4. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that, during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-landlord had sold the premises, as is evident from the application for impleadment filed by the IIIrd party and, thus, the appeal ought to have been allowed. The said contention merits rejection for the sole reason that no pleadings exist, to demonstrate that the subsequent development were ever brought by pleadings and substantiated by evidence at the appellate stage, even before this Court, no material exists to demonstrate that a sale deed as alleged was executed. 5. In view of the above, findings of fact have been recorded by both the courts below, no interference is called for. 6. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench