B.S. Dhillon, J. - (1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the findings of the learned Court below on issue No. 1 is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in L.P.A. No. 72 of 1977 (Mohan Lal Vs. Ram Das & others) decided on Dec. 4,1979 , to contend that the widow of the deceased tenant could inherit the tenancy rights. There is no dispute with this proposition of law but what we find is that the learned Court below has recorded a finding of fact that the widow was not in actual possession of the shop and it were the two sons of the deceased, namely, Ved Parkash & Amrish Kumar, who were in possession of the shop in dispute. This is essentially a finding of fact & nothing could be shown by the learned counsel from the record to hold that this finding of fact is vitiated. In view of what has been said above, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Court below on issue No. 1 is affirmed.
(2.) No other point has been raised before us. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed with costs. However, we direct that the petitioner may vacate the shop by 15th of Aug., 1980, provided the arrears of rent up to date, i.e. up to Aug. 15, 1980, proved the arrears of rent up to date, i.e. up to Aug. 15,1980, are paid within week from today. If the arrears of rent are not deposited with the Rent Controller within the stipulated period the execution shall proceed in accordance with law. We order accordingly. Petition dismissed.;