BUDHAN DEVI Vs. DANESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The shop in dispute belonged to one Snit Budhan Devi. She filed an application for ejectment on the ground that the same had been let out by her tenant Danesh Kumar to one Sham Lal. Her plea prevailed with the Rent Controller but the learned Appellate Authority rejected the same. She filed the instant revision.

(2.) During the pendency of this revision she passed away. An application has been made by one Amrit Lal who claims that Smt. Budhan Devi had left this shop to him under a will because he was her son. There is an objection on behalf of the respondents that this application is barred by time and Amrit Lal could not be allowed to be brought on record. Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to revision petition. The objection filed by the respondents on this point is over-ruled and Amrit Lal is allowed to be brought on record as a legal representative of Smt. Budhan Devi.

(3.) On merits, however, a more formidable difficulty is faced by the petitioner. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority which is the final Court of fact, has appreciated the statement of Ved Parkash RW 2/4 who stated that he filled in an application form for the supply of electric connection for this shop and that form was thumb marked by Smt. Budhan Devi deceased in his presence. In that form Sham Lal respondent is mentioned as a tenant. The Appellate Authority also took into consideration forms 'F' and 'B' filed by Sham Lal with the Shop Inspector wherein also Sham Lal was shown as her tenant. On the basis of these two documents and the oral statement made by Sham Lal, it came to the conclusion that the latter was a direct tenant under Smt. Budhan Devi deceased. This is a finding of fact based on cogent reasons and it cannot be successfully challenged in a revision petition under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . There is no force in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.