A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) The Concurrent findings of both the courts below that the petitioner was not in occupation of the disputed accommodation with the consent of the landlord since before 5th July, 1976, the relevant date, is based on documentary evidence which, I see no reason for discarding. The courts below have also drawn on a significant fact that in the voters list the residence of the petitioner have been shown as House No. 222. Further the petitioner was not able to produce electricity bills which might have sustained his plea that he was residing in the disputed accommodation at the relevant time. The conclusion reached by the courts below on a pure question of fact is not vitiated in law much less one apparent on the face of record. The petition is dismissed summarily. However, if the petitioner applies for allotment of the disputed accommodation, the same may be considered and disposed of according to law provided, of course, if the petitioner is competent to make such an application under the Rules.
(2.) A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges, today. Petition dismissed.;