- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. Heard Sri R. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ajit Kumar as sisted by Sri Yasharth appearing on behalf of contesting respondents landlord. J. S. C. C. Suit for eviction of the petitioner was instituted. It was decreed on 19-7-2000. Against the said order the petitioner preferred a revision application No. 786 of 2000 which too has been dismissed by the Rcvisional Court on 21-11 - 2000. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner had not committed default in payment of the arrears of rent and the question of denial of title was not properly dealt with.
(2.) AFTER having heard learned Coun sel for the parties I find that the concurrent findings of fact are not required to be disturbed by invoking extra-ordinary juris diction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Sri R. N. Tripathi further admits that the petitioner has already been dis possessed from the disputed accommoda tion pursuant to the decree passed in S. C. C. Suit No. 68 of 1999. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;