NAND LAL Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the learned Rent Tribunal 18.1.2009 as well as the appellate order dated 12.1.2010. As per the facts of the case, the plaintiff retired Government employee filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-non-applicant from the rented premises before the Rent Tribunal, Chittorgarh on the ground of nuisance created by the defendant as well as on the ground of personal bonafide necessity. The defendant's-petitioner's contention is that plaintiff's son is hard of hearing and the plaintiff is helping his son only and cannot start a new business as alleged by the plaintiff. It is also submitted that plaintiff is getting the pension and other monitory benefits like house rent etc, therefore, he is not in need to start any new business.

(2.) I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the reasons given in the impugned orders. The courts below considered the pleas raised by the petitioner that plaintiff's son is hard of hearing and also considered whether the plaintiff is in need of the suit premises or not. The petitioner wants total re-appreciation of the evidence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to the extent to reach to the conclusion which may be contrary to the decision taken by the fact finding authorities. No question of law is involved in the present writ petition.