HARNAM SINGH Vs. RAKSHA RANI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition against whom the order of eviction has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant from the premises, in dispute, which consisted of a residential building on the ground of their own use and occupation. The petition was contested on behalf of the tenant inter alia on the ground that the premises were not required for the personal use and occupation, as alleged in the ejectment application. However, the learned Rent Controller on the appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the landlords required the premises for their use and occupation. Consequently, the order of eviction was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order of eviction passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality or improperty in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below as to be interfered with in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The learned Appellate Authority, after discussing the entire evidence on the record has given a firm finding that after retiring from the Government service at Amritsar, Shubh Karan Dass, landlord, intended to shift to Ambala City and that it could not at all be deemed to be a mere wish or desire on his part. As stated earlier, being a finding of fact, it could not be gone into this petition.