FATEH SINGH Vs. ARUN KUMAR BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUSHIL Harkauli, J. I have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kripa Shankar learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner is occupant of the disputed shop since 1980 admittedly. By the order dated 24-4-2002, vacancy was declared in respect of the said shop on the allegation that it was covered by the Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and the petitioner's occupation was without an allotment order. That decision about the vacancy was challenged by way of writ petition No. 18865 of 2002 and that writ petition has been dismissed as infructuous today on account of the present writ petition whereby the order confirming the vacancy but setting aside the release order has been passed by the revisional Court under Section 18 of the said Act.

(3.) THIS is essentially a finding of pure fact returned by the impugned order, which is capable of challenge on very limited ground under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioner that two affidavits had been filed from his side of the persons who are alleged to be independent witnesses have not been considered by the Rent Control Officer is not sufficient to challenge the said finding of fact. In fact the revisional Court has also expressly referred to these affidavits and has stated that disbelieving these two witnesses by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any serious infirmity.