- (1.) This is a landlord's revision petition against the order of Appellate Authority dated January 12, 1979, whereby the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was reversed.
(2.) Smt. Shanti Devi, petitioner, filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the ground that she needed it for her own occupation The case sent up at the trial was that the petitioner was living with her three grown up children, two sons and one daughter in the ground floor and the accommodation in their possession which consisted of one room, two verandas and deodi was insufficient for the needs of her family. The premises in possession of the tenant consists of one room and a verandah on the first floor and one barsati on the second floor. During the pendency of the proceedings, one room and a varandah fell vacant on the first floor which was taken possession of by the landlord. The Rent Controller after taking into consideration the accommodation in possession of the petitioner held that the same was not sufficient to meet the requirements of her family and ordered ejectment of the tenant. The learned Appellate Authority reversed that finding of the Rent Controller on the ground that when the premises in dispute were let out to the tenant the family members of the petitioner were much more as at that time two daughters who have since been married and her husband were also residing in this very accommodation which is in her possession now. It further observed that one of the rooms in the ground floor has been converted into a shop and let out which shows that the petitioner does not need more accommodation. It is primarily this part of the judgment which was attacked most by the learned counsel for the petitioner, because according to him no part of the residential accommodation has been converted into a shop and whatever portion is being used as a shop, was let out from the very beginning, long before the premises in dispute were let out to the respondent. From the examination of the plan the correctness of which is not disputed, it is evident that the Appellate Authority went wrong in observing that a room had been converted into a shop and let out for commercial purposes However, this was only one of the reasons given for reversing the findings of the Rent Controller and even if it is ignored the order of the Appellate Authority can still be maintained.
(3.) Admittedly in the year 1961, when the demised premises were let out, the family of the petitioner consisted of seven members whereas now it consists of only four. No doubt, the children in the year 1961 were quite young and they have now grown up but all the same, the fact remains that the entire family was living in the ground floor consisting of one room and two varandahs and a deodi. The additional accommodation sought to be got vacated again consists of one room and a varandah on the first floor. That much accommodation the petitioner has come into possession during the pendency of these proceedings, having been vacated by another tenant. In these circumstances it is not possible to hold that the view taken by the Appellate Authority was so grossly erroneous as to justify interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court, As held recently by the supreme Court to M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Goswamy Chettiar, 1980 AIR(SC) 1253, despite the wide language used in Section 15 (5) of the Rent Act, the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the finding of fact even if it does not agree with the finding of the subordinate authority. Therefore, no case to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Authority has been made out and this petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.;