LAWS(P&H)-2004-9-20

HARJIT KAUR Vs. M.K. SETH

Decided On September 15, 2004
HARJIT KAUR Appellant
V/S
M.K. Seth Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below wherein it has been held that the landlord-petitioner did not require the demised house for her occupation or for occupation of her son. It has also been held that the grounds set up by the landlord-petitioner are false. The ground of non-payment of rent has not been pressed because the rent was paid by the tenant-respondent. Both the Court below have recorded the finding that version of the landlord-petitioner that she required gall bladder surgery have been disbelieved by both the Courts below because the landlord-petitioner would not require to permanently come to Ludhiana for the treatment of the afore-mentioned disease. Moreover, the landlord-petitioners who were living in the demised-house had shifted to village Dhudike and the demised house was rented out to the tenant-respondent. Learned Appellate Authority has posed a relevant question as to what happened between the shifting of the landlord- petitioner and her family from Ludhiana to Dhudike in 1978-79 till the filing of ejectment petition by her on 7.3.1981 so as to justify the demand for shifting back to Ludhiana. It has been held that the story of illness of the appellant and consequent necessity of shifting to Ludhiana is nothing but a devise to get the ejectment of the tenant-respondent on one pretext or the other because her gall bladder was removed in March, 1981 and there is no necessity for her to come to Ludhiana so frequently so as to require the house. In any case the version of the landlord-petitioner is not corroborated by any medical evidence. Similarly, the necessity of the son has been found to be superfluous because he was employed as a teacher in Punjab Public School, Nabha. Nothing has been shown that he has been carrying out any work as T.V. Mechanic at Ludhiana or at any other place in pursuance to the Diploma in T.V. and Radio Technology.

(2.) SHRI M.J.S. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me to take a view different than the one taken by the Courts below because there are concurrent findings of facts which are based on evidence.

(3.) THE revisional power of this Court under Section 15(5) of the Act cannot be equated with the power to appeal. It is true that power in revision under Section 15(5) of the Act is wider than the power of revision preferred on this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but still it would fall short of the power of the appellate Court. Sub-section (5) of the Section 15 of the Act is reproduced below for facility of reference :-