1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The petition for the eviction was filed on the ground of willful default and owners occupation. The trial court ordered eviction on both the grounds. But the appellate court ordered eviction only on the ground of willful default, holding that the ground of owners occupation was not proved. The original tenant died during the pendency of this revision and his son has been brought on record as legal representative as per order dated 20.2.1996 in C.M.P. 8770/94 by this Court. There can be no difficulty in holding that the concurrent finding on the question of wilful default by the authorities below cannot be assailed or set aside by this Court until the findings are shown to be perverse. No findings of the courts below has been shown to be perverse before me by the counsel for the petitioner (tenant). Therefore, the revision has to be dismissed.

2. But however, the counsel for the petitioner wanted to raise two preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the very petition for eviction. His first objection was that what was leased to the tenant was a blacksmithy shop, which will be governed squarely by Section 30(iii) of t