Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. - (1.) This is a tenant's revision petition against an order of eviction recorded in appeal by the appellate Authority city, Amritsar. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application of the landlord on the technical ground that the service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid. At the appellate stage, the landlord successfully pointed out that leaving apart the validity of the said notice, even the requirement of its service was non-essential. On that premises, the Appellate Authority, instead of remitting the cage back to the Rent Controller to record findings on other issues, issues, itself appraised the evidence and recorded the finding that the demised premises consisted of two rooms and the rate of rent was Rs. 60.00 per mensem. Those findings, patently made clear that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent when called upon on the first date of fearing. The necessary order for eviction had to follow in that event.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact the tenancy comprised of only one room and the rent was not Rs. 60 per mensem but Rs. 30 per mensem. While appraising the evidence of the parties and hearing their arguments, the learned Appellate Authority recorded a concession made by the counsel for the tenant in the following terms : "As has been mentioned above, the Rent Controller gave no finding on any of the other issues framed in this case, but both parties led evidence on all these issues. In this view of the matter, the parties were invited to address arguments on all the issues arising in this cave in the light of the evidence on record. Here again counsel for the tenant conceded that the finding, on all issues had to be in favour of the landlord and could not support the case of the tenant "
(3.) Neither in the grounds of revision taken before this Court nor at the bar has anything been said as to how the concession of the counsel for the tenant above quoted is mistaken or is capable of being ignored altogether. The judgment of the Appellate Authority not only rests on the said concession but is otherwise based on the appraisal of evidence. No error has been pointed out towards the appraisal of the said evidence. It appears that the tenant was prevaricating in the payment of rent His evidence is also not consistent and he admitted himself to be in arrears from the 8th or 9th month of the year 1975.;