PRABHU LAL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 23.10.1991 of Rent Controlling Authority Neemuch, passed in case No. 15/A/90(4) 84-85, whereby a decree of eviction has been passed against the plaintiff-tenant.

(2.) THE brief history of the case is that the plaintiff-non-applicant filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority on 18.3.1985 with the assertions that he is a retired Government servant and he bonafide requires the house for his residence, which is presently in occupation of the tenant- applicant (here). The tenant-applicant has not vacated the same despite notice. The defendant-applicant resisted the claim and pleaded that the plaintiff-non-applicant actually resides with his son who is employed and possesses a Government qarter at Ratlam. The plaintiff-lndlord wants to sell the house and in order to gain the higher price wants eviction. The learned Rent Controlling Authority has accepted the contention of the plaintiff-non-applicant and passed a decree of eviction. Hence, this revision.

(3.) THOUGH it is true that normally Revisional Court does not disturb the finding of fact, even though if it can come to a different conclusion on a closed scrutiny and evaluation of evidence if the inference drawn by the Court below is probable. But, where the Court or the Authority concerned fails to consider the material piece of evidence that gives a ground for interference. Even otherwise non-consideration of material piece of evidence raises substantial question of law. Therefore, it would have to be seen as to whether the learned Rent Controlling Authority has failed to consider the material piece of evidence and whether the consideration of such evidence is likely to affect the finding.