Back
1981 Supreme(SC) 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Radhey Shyam, Appellant
Versus
Nazar Singh, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1978
Decided on 30-7-1981.
Headnote:
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - S. 2 (g) - Rent control and Eviction – Tenant – Eviction – Dismissal of revision petition - Petition was filed by landlord for eviction of tenant on ground that he needed accommodation for his bona fide personal requirement - Acccommodation consists of a shop-cum-flat and was leased out @ Rs. 300/- per month - Statutory authorities under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act concurrently held that accommodation was a "residential building" by virtue of definition in sub-sec. (g) of S. 2 of Act - That finding was not assailed before High Court - Held, Before us learned counsel for appellant wants to reopen finding whether accommodation in question can be described as a "residential building" within the meaning of S. 2 (g) of Act Having refrained from challenging the finding in High Court we do not see why we should be permitted to do so here - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
PATHAK, J. :— This is a tenants appeal directed against the judgment dated Sep. 21, 1977 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing his revision petition in limine.
2. A petition was filed by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he needed the accommodation for his bona fide personal requirement. The acccommodation consists of a shop-cum-flat and was leased out @ Rs. 300/- per month. The statutory authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act concurrently held that the accommodation was a "residential building" by virtue of the definition in sub-sec. (g) of S. 2 of the Act. That finding was not assailed before the High Court.
3. Before us learned counsel for the appellant wants to reopen the finding whether the accommodation in question can be described as a "residential building" within the meaning of S. 2 (g) of the Act Having refrained from challenging the finding in the High Court we do not see why we should be permitted to do so here.
4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with Costs.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1982 SC 100
