DAYA NAND Vs. VIRMO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-tenant has challenged the judgment passed by the High Court declining to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Controller, ordering eviction. The main contention of the appellant is that the respondent is not the owner of the premises.

(2.) However, having heard the learned counsel for the parties extensively and having regard to the concurrent findings against the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.

(3.) Taking note of the fact that the appellant is 78 years of age and is reportedly bed ridden and has been occupying this house since 1986, we are inclined to grant time till 31.12.2019, though the appellant prayed for three years. We order accordingly.