8 . On perusal of record I find that it is clear from the evidence on record that the release application was filed by the landlord for his own need and not for the need of his sons, who are admittedly having their own business in different accommodations. I also find that from the evidence on record it is clear that the tenanted accommodation is only part of the eye hospital, which is being run by the petitioner no. 1 herein-Dr. Jhumi Kulshreshtha, who claims herself to be adopted daughter of late Dr. R.C. Kushreshtha. Without going into the issue of her being adopted daughter or not it is clear that the larger area of the eye hospital is in possession of the petitioners herein and therefore, they have sufficient accommodation for running of eye hospital. Apart from that I find that the trial court without any cogent evidence on record has given a finding that the profession of eye hospital is connected with public purpose and is charitable in nature and displacing of tenant would cause inconvenience to the general public. Nothing of that sort was even alleged by the petitioners herein in their pleadings, therefore, this finding of the trial court was absolutely out of record and to some extent mala fide in nature. I also find that this finding of the trial court was absolutely perverse in nature and no prudent person would reach to such conclusion in absence of any pleading or evidence on record and was rightly disbelieved and set aside by the lower appellate court, which is the last court on facts. The finding recorded by the trial court on issue of bonafide need, on the basis of this finding was, therefore, clearly perverse and was rightly set aside by the lower appellate court. The issue of comparative hardship was also incorrectly decided by the trial court on the basis of the same reasoning by stating that eviction of the tenanted accommodation would cause inconvenience to the general public, whereas the eye hospital
