GIAN CHAND Vs. TEJINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act - for short) has been filed against the order dated 22.10.2005 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, whereby the appeal of the tenant-petitioner against the order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar has been dismissed.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent initially filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Act, seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner from the ground floor of the property, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint and in the alternative, it was prayed for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner in terms of Section 13 of the Act. During the pendency of the petition, the ground for seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner under Section 13-A of the Act was not pressed and the claim was pressed only for seeking ejectment under Section 13 of the Act. The ground taken for seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner by the landlord-respondent was that he required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller, vide her order dated 2.8.2005 accepted the contentions of the landlord-respondent and ordered ejectment of the tenant-petitioner. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also vide her order dated 22.10.2005 upheld the findings reached at by the learned Rent Controller. The order of the Appellate Authority as already noticed, is assailed in this petition.

(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the same. The Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority on appreciation of the evidence and material on record, have held that the requirement of the landlord-respondent is genuine. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not to dislodge the concurrent findings reached at by the authorities below. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh, 2003(1) RCR(Rent) 42 : AIR 2003 SC 623 has observed that the object of conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court, by sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, is to enable it for satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of an order made by the Controller or the proceedings before him. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act, it was held is confined to testing the legality or propriety of order or proceedings of the Controller. Simply because a different Judge of a court of facts could have been persuaded to change opinion and draw a different inference from the same set of facts is not the jurisdiction of a revisional authority to upset a pure finding of fact. The High Court, it was observed need not be solicitous and venture in suggesting what would be more appropriate for the landlord to do. In respect of the said case it was observed was an appropriate case where the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of the fact arrived at by the two authorities below and that too concurrently, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction simply because it was inclined to have a different opinion.