- (1.) THIS revision petition under S. 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is brought from the decision of the Appellate Authority, Hissar, under that Act, confirming in appeal the decision of the Rent Controller of the district, and dismissing the application of the landlord, Amolak Singh, who sought for the eviction of Madan Lal, his tenant, from one of the shops situate at Hissar. Amolak Singh filed a petition for eviction of his tenant and the allegations were, that the tenant had not paid the rent and had materially impaired the value and utility of the shop, that the landlord required the premises for personal needs and that the tenant proved to be a nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood. In the present revision we are confined to the last ground which is covered by S. 13 (2) (iv) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord and was of the opinion that the said ground was not made out and accordingly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. The landlord came in appeal before the Appellate Authority, but did not succeed. The finding of the Rent Controller on the ground covered by S. 13 (2) (iv) of the Act was upheld and the entire evidence on the record was duly considered. Now the landlord has filed the present revision against the decision of the Appellant Authority.
(2.) IT is to be understood at the very outset that the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 15 (5) of the Act is some--what restricted. It is true that the High Court is not prohibited to go into the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. Nevertheless, a finding of fact given by the Courts below need only be set aside if there are legitimate grounds for doing so. In Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, AIR 1963 SC 499, their Lordships observed that the power of the High Court under S. 15 (5) of the Act does not include the power to revise the concurrent findings without showing how those findings are erroneous. A similar observation was made by a Division Bench of this Court in F. S. Hugh v. Sukha Singh (1966) 68 Punj LR 899. It was held that the powers of the High Court under Section 15 (5) of the Act are much larger than those enjoyed under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. But this does not mean that the nature and jurisdiction of the High Court which essentially is revisional jurisdiction, would justify interference with the concurrent finding of fact, where that finding has been properly arrived at. With this state of law, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to point out in what manner the finding arrived at by the two authorities below could be stated not to have been properly arrived at. The very language used in Section 15 (5) of the Act indicates that the legality or the propriety of that finding has got to be considered. If the evidence was duly assessed and a reasonable view could be taken in favour of or against either of the parties, perhaps the revising court would not be justified to record a different finding under its revisional powers. In the instant case, the witnesses produced by the landlord give out a general statement that the tenant was having some jhagra with the sons of the landlord. A. W. 2 meant to state that this jhagra was due to the reason that the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the shop in order to accommodate one of his sons. This fact is further corroborated by Exhibit R. 1, a joint statement recorded before the police in a proceeding under S. 107, Cr. P. C. where in it was specifically pointed out on behalf of the landlord that he would not ask the tenant to vacate the shop. Exhibits R. 8 and R. 9 also indicated that as a result of the effort on the part of the landlord to get the shop vacated, the proceedings under S. 107, Cr. P. C. started between the parties and that these proceedings ended in favour of the tenant. A. W. 1 and A. W. 3, who were stated to be the neighbours merely gave out a general statement that the landlord and the tenant were picking up quarrels. As I have stated before, A. W. 2 gave out the reasons for this quarrel, namely, the effort on the part of the landlord to get the shop vacated by the tenant for the need of his son. A. W. 4 and A. W. 5 are respectively the son of the landlord and the landlord himself. They were of course interested witnesses and hence the two authorities below have not placed much reliance on their statements. There was a denial of such a quarrel on the side of the respondent tenant. The two authorities below considered this evidence and held that whatever quarrel arose between the landlord and the tenant, that is due to the reason that the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the shop unjustifiably. In fact the language used in S. 13 (2) (iv) of the Act does not contemplate a single incident of a quarrel or exchange of abuses between a landlord and a tenant. There has to be a series of acts and conduct on the part of the tenant and the landlord or occupiers of the buildings in the neighbour--hood so that nuisance can be inferred against the tenant. The mere existence of ill feelings between the landlord and his tenant could not have justified the ejectment in this provision of the Act. A sort of continuous or frequent nuisance committed by the tenant is contemplated and such a nuisance has obviously to interfere with the convenience or comfort of other persons living in the neighbouring buildings. In the instant case, as the evidence indicated, it could not be established that there were any series of acts or conduct on the part of the tenant which could amount to nuisance as contemplated under the provision. It appears to be a case where the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate the shop to serve his own needs. The tenant may have retaliated and in that connection some quarrel may have arisen between him and the landlord.
(3.) IT is also manifest that no details of the quarrel were mentioned in the eviction petition, nor any such details were given in the notice served upon the tenant. In those documents again, a sort of general statement was made that the tenant was a quarrelsome person and in my opinion that was not enough to cover the case under S. 13 (2) (iv) of the Act.;