- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the validity of the judgment and order dated 16-5-1995 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order passed by the trial Court dated 16-12-1989 was dis missed.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of default. The suit was con tested by the defendant-respondent who filed the written statement controverting and denying the facts stated m the plaint and pleading that he was not a defaulter and was also entitled to benefit of sub-sec tion (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The trial Court after going through the material on record, recorded findings on the relevant issues involved in the case suit against the petitioner and in favour of the contesting respondent and decreed the suit by its judgment and order dated 16-12-1989. Challenging the validity of the said decree, a revision was filed before Revisional Court and the Revisional Court has also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 16-5-1995. Hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Court below have not considered the documents filed by the petitioner, therefore the judgment and order passed by the Court below was liable to be set aside. Ave considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.
(3.) THE documents which are stated to have not been considered by the Courts below, have been detailed in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. No documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner to show that those documents were actually filed before the Courts below. THE contents of paragraph 21 of the writ petition have been sworn on perusal of record. It is also not known as to whether said documents were proved in accordance with law or not. However, I have gone through the docu ments, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures VII to XI to the writ peti tion. None of these documents proves that the contesting respondent or any other member of his family has acquired any other building and for that reason he was not entitled for the benefit of sub- section (4)of Section 20 of the Act. Ave also perused the judgment and order passed by the Courts below. The findings recorded by the Courts below are concurrent findings of fact and they can not, therefore, be said to be erroneous and perverse. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.;