- (1.) The tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the courts below on the ground that the premises in dispute are required for bona fide use and occupation of the one of the landlord who has retired.
(2.) Challenging the said concurrent finding, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the application for additional evidence, Annexure P.1 has not been decided by the learned Appellate Authority. By virtue of the said application the tenant wants to show that in the municipal record of the house-tax survey and assessment, two shops and third shop with gallery and garage assessed are separately.
(3.) The petitioner has prayed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner as well as to lead additional evidence regarding the site plan referred in the statement recorded in the previous litigation between the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent and another tenant Devi Ram. The learned Appellate Authority has decided another application for additional evidence filed by the petitioner on 13.1.2006.;