The counsel for the applicant on instruction has also contended that the appellant and his wife does not have any other reasonable suitable residential accommodation. In case the applicant shall be evicted from the premises, the appellant and his family member shall be on the road and the inconvenience caused to the appellant shall be much more in the facts and circumstances. Consequently the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant in case of dispossession. The applicant shall also suffer irreparable loss in the circumstance. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is busy in the matter at Dawarka Court. He states that the similar matter are coming up on 31st July, 2015. Request is made to have this matter also on 31st July, 2015. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the charges for use and occupation of the premises in respect of which the notice for eviction has been issued shall be about Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000 per month, however, nothing has been produced to show as what would be the reasonable charges for use and occupation of such premises.
