LAWS(P&H)-1980-9-144

KRISHAN LAL Vs. MADAN LAL

Decided On September 25, 1980
KRISHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
MADAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of an application filed for ejectment of the respondents under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the building in dispute. The ejectment was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the said premises were residential building and the petitioner required it for his own use and occupation. The respondents contested the petition and pleaded that the building in dispute was a non-residential building. As the rent was tendered at the first date of hearing, which was found to be valid, that matter is no more under dispute.

(2.) The Rent Controller after recording evidence of the parties held that the premises in dispute was a non-residential building and dismissed the petition. The finding of the Rent Controller was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority vide judgment, dated October 9, 1978. Still dissatisfied, the landlord has come up in this revision.

(3.) The concurrent finding recorded by the authorities below is essentially a finding of fact. No legal infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence by the authorities below was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which could entitle me to interfere with their finding. Moreover after going through the evidence produced by the parties, I could find no reason to take a different view. That apart, even if I may be of a different opinion that the authorities below it would not be open to me to interfere with their concurrent finding in view of a recent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sr Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar, 1980 AIR(SC) 1253, wherein it was held that despite the wide language employed in section 25 [of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, which is pari materia with Section 15(5) of the said Act] the High Court quite obviously should not interfere with findings of fact merely because it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority.