Jia Lal vs Vidya Parkash Dhir

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against the order of the lower appellate authority whereby his appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed.

Briefly put, the respondent sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground (i) that he is in arrears of rent from 1.7.1983 onwards; (ii) that the respondent-landlord requires the premises in dispute for himself and for his married son who is also blessed with two daughters. He wants to separate them as they are not pulling on well with his wife. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Rent Controller the petitioner put in appearance and filed the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

Whether the tender made by the respondent on the first date of hearing is valid ? OPR

Whether the petitioner requires the demised premises for his personal bonafide necessity and for the personal bonafide necessity of his family members ? OPA

Relief.

Since the tenant tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, issue No. 1 was not pressed by the landlord and so was decided against him. Under issue No. 2, Rent Controller on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the landlord requires the premises in dispute for his personal bona fide need and for the personal bona fide need of his family and so ordered the eviction of the tenant, vide order dated 18.11.1986. However, the tenant was granted two months time to vacate the. premises. Before the appellate Court, the matter was once again examined on facts as well as law. Counsel for the respondent-tenant urged that it is proved on record that the landlord had two sons and two daughters, one son and his family are living in one house and they are in possession of four rooms besides kitchen, bath room and a court-yard. Since their children are married and are living far away, the present accommodation with the landlord sufficiently meets his need and so the present application is an attempt to get the premises vacated and thereafter to let it out to another tenant at the enhanced rate of rent. The appellate authority on careful perusal of evidence on record found no merit in the contention of the appellant. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that there is unrebutted evidence on record that relation between daughter in-law and mother-in-law is. in fact, not cordial. It also found as a fact that the landlord requires the build-in genuinely for his own occupation and for his son, this way agreeing with the finding of the Rent Controller found the application without merit and consequently dismissed the same.

Before me, once again the counsel for the tenant had made an attempt to persuade me to seek reversal of the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

The powers of the revisional Court are rather limited. The Court is merely to see as to whether the Subordinate Court has decided the matter according to law and thereafter pass such orders in relation thereto as it thinks fit. Except for the verbal assertion of the counsel for the petitioner that the landlord does not require the premises in dispute bonafidely for his residence, no material evidence has been referred to in support of his above contention. Findings of the Courts below being essentially finding of fact cannot be interferred with by a revisional Court. The observation of the apex Court in Rajbir Kaur and Another Vs. S. Chokesiri and Co., , aptly applies to the facts of the present case. These are :-

"The scope of the revisional jurisdiction depends on the language of the statute conferring the revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is only a part of the appellate jurisdiction and cannot be equated with that of the full fledged appeal. Though the revisional power-depending upon the language of the provision might be wider than revision power u/s 151 (or 115 ? ) of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet, a revisional court is not a second or first appeal.

When the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional court must, indeed, he reluctant to embark upon an independent re-assessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the Courts below ........."

Resultantly, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. However, the petitioner is granted another three months time to vacate the premises in dispute subject to his depositing all the arrears of rent due including the rent for the next three months within a month from the passing of this order. In case of non-compliance of the same, the respondent shall be at liberty to execcute the order forthwith. No order as to costs.