Sunil Kumar &
ANR. Vs. Anil Kumar  INSC 1337 (8 August 2008)
REPORTABLE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4943 OF
2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2648 of 2007) Sunil Kumar & Anr. ...
Anil Kumar ..Respondent(s)
appeal is directed against the Judgment and final order dated 1st of December,
2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No.
6420 of 2006, by which the High Court had dismissed the Civil Revision case in
respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from the demised
premises inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent, sub- 1 letting and
bonafide requirement of the demised premises before the Rent Controller.
learned Rent Controller rejected the claim of the respondent for eviction on
the ground of non- payment of the rent, subletting but on the ground of
bonafide requirement, he had allowed the eviction against the appellant.
aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the appellant filed an
appeal before the Appellate Authority, Jallandhar and the Appellate Authority,
by its Judgment dated 15th of November, 2006 dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
the aforesaid orders of the Appellate Authority as well as of the Rent
Controller, the appellant filed a Civil Revision case, as mentioned herein. By
the impugned order, the said Revision case was also dismissed on the ground
that there was no perversity or infirmity in the orders of the Tribunals below.
Before us also, the learned counsel could not satisfy that the concurrent
findings of fact, as affirmed by the High Court, were vitiated by infirmity or
we do not find any ground to interfere with such concurrent findings of fact.
The appeal is thus dismissed.
direct that the appellant shall be permitted to keep the premises in question
for a further period of nine months from this date subject to filing the usual
undertaking in this court within four weeks from today and on expiry of this
period, he shall vacate and handover peaceful possession of the premises in
question to the respondent. No order as to costs.
Pages: 1 2 3