PANDURANG Vs. SHAMSUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the tenant, against whom the respondent-landlord had initiated proceedings under Section 15 of Hyderated Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, for eviction. The re'ationship of tenant and landlord is admitted and there is no dispute on that court between the parties.

(2.) THE landlord preferred an application for eviction on three grounds, (i) wilful default, fii) change of user and (iii) damage to the property. The Rent Controller, who heard the application, allowed the application of the landlord for eviction on all the three grounds In appeal, the learned District Judge also dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and confirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller.

(3.) THE concurrent findings of fact are challenged by the tenant in this revision petition. Shri Patil, appearing for the petitioner/tenant conended that the courts below committed error, not only in appreciation of evidence, but have committed material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them. According to him, the landlord has failed to establish all three grounds. His further contention is that while deciding the appeal, filed by the tenant, the learned District Judge has not considered the entire evidence on record and the oral evidence of the parties is not considered while recording a finding against the tenant by the learned district Judge in appeal.