The High Court companyfirmed as against respondent landlord, the finding of the Appellate Court on the question of sub letting.
The appellant denied all these and other allegations made in the petition.
The eviction petition was based on three grounds a The appellant has number paid the rent from 2nd July, 1968, b He has sub let the shop without taking the permission of the landlord and c the building is in dilapidated companydition with cracks hence number fit for human habitation requiring demolition and reconstruction.
The questions raised in these appeals are Whether the High Court under its Revisional Jurisdiction which limits to examine the legality and propriety of the appellate companyrt order was justified in reversing its findings based on evidence on record.
In order to appreciate the companytroversies we are herewith giving some of the essential facts.
The appellant filed appeal and the Appellate Court set aside the trial companyrt findings.
It held that the appellant tendered the rent on 24.10.1975 about which numbergrievance was made by the respondent landlord at the time of arguments, the shop was sub let by the appellant, and the disputed shop is unfit for human habitation.
This crack measuring 2x 7.5 depth from the upper side and 1.5 x 6.5 from the lower side and in the end of the same wall, there was also a big crack measuring 2x 8 from the upperside 2x7 from the lower side and the roof of the passage was in a totally damaged companydition which did number companyer the shop but companyers the passage.
Whether the High Court companyld have appointed a local Commissioner while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and to reverse the finding of the appellate companyrt based on the report of such Commissioner.
Aggrieved by this the respondent filed revision in the High Court.
The appellant being aggrieved by this order has filed the present appeal.
The respondents number.
of this Prakash Rani, who filed petition for eviction against the appellant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act from the disputed shop.
The submission is, power of revision cannot be companystrued to empower companyrt to reappraise the evidence and disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court.
During the pendency of the said revision an application was moved by respondents for appointment of a local Commissioner which was objected through written objection by the appellant.
LITTTTTTTJ MISRA.
1 to 8 are Lrs.
On the other hand learned companynsel for the appellant has relied on Mrs. Mohini Suraj Bhan vs. Vinod Kumar Mital, 1986 1 SCC 687.
The present appeals are by the defendant tenant as against the order dated 24th March, 2000 passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction by which it reversed the finding of the appellate companyrt that the disputed shop in question is number unsafe for human habitation.
The trial companyrt decreed the eviction petition.
The appellant took the disputed shop on rent from one Aya Ram who sold the said shop to one Prakash Rani.
J. Leave granted.
