(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 659 and 660 of 1975.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Mam Chand took the property in dispute on rent from Brij Bhushan, landlord. The latter filed an application for ejectment of the former in 1965 (Application No. 69/2 of 1966) inter ally on the ground that he had not paid the arrears of rent. Later on be filed another application for ejectment in 1969 (Application No. 9312 of 1969) wherein he took all the grounds mentioned in the first application and also an additional ground of nuisance. Both the applications were decided by the Rent Controller in April, 1972. He accepted the applications of the landlord and ordered ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he had not paid arrears of rent. The tenant went up in appeal before the District Judge, Karnal, who reversed that finding, accepted the appeal and dismissed the applications for ejectment of the landlord. He has now come up in revisions against the said orders.
(3.) The first contention of Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the tenant had not paid the arrear of rent etc., on the first date of hearing and the learned Appellate Authority, therefore, had erroneously upset the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the argument of the learned counsel but regret my inability to accept it. I have carefully gone through the judgment and also the evidence. The learned Appellate Authority after discussing the evidence of the parties threadbare came to the conclusion that the arrears of rent had been paid by the tenant. I do not see sufficient reasons for interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority. I consequently reject the contention.