Concurrent findings of fact by competent authorities giving cogent reasons therefor are not open to challenge unless such findings are perverse and based on no evidence.

BEHERA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has made this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the impugned orders passed by the original and the appellate authorities under the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (for short, the 'act') allowing an application made by Ashok Pandit, (Opposite Party No. 1) for eviction of the petitioner from the house belonging to the former in the city of Cuttack which had been let out to Baikuntha Bihari Acharya (Opposite party No. 2) on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- in the year 1963 and which had illegally been sublet by the opposite party No. 2 to the present petitioner. Eviction had been sought by the Opposite Party No. 1 on the grounds of illegal subletting of the house taken on rent by the Opposite Party No. 2 in favour of the petitioner, wilful default in the payment of rent and requirement of the house by the Opposite Party No. 1 for the purpose of repairs. The petitioner had challenged these grounds and had also contended before the House Rent Controller that the Opposite Party No. 1 has no locus standi to make the application as his father had let out the house to him and in addition, the State Government was a necessary party to the proceeding as a part of the land in question on which the house stood was Khasmahal land belonging to the State which had been leased out in favour of the father of the Opposite Party No. 1 until 1973 whereafter neither the father of the Opposite Party No. 1 nor the latter had any right or interest in the land. The petitioner's case was that since 1963, he alone had been staying in the house paying rent to the landlord although the receipts were being issued in the name of the Opposite Party No. 2. A case was sought to be made out by him that in Mar. 1972, there had been an agreement for sale with respect to the disputed house with the landlord Motilal Pandit and the petitioner had paid Rs. 5,000/-as an advance towards the consideration money. The Opposite Party No. 2, who had been given the house on rent, as stated by the Opposite Party No. 1, had supported the case of the latter.

( 2 ) BOTH the sides led oral and documentary evidence. On a consideration of the materials placed before him, the House Rent Controller accepted the case of the Opposite Party No. 1, rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner and passed the impugned order of eviction (Annexure-1 ). The petitioner preferred an appeal and it was dismissed by the appellate authority as per Annexure-2.

( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. G. C. Rout, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Basu, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. Mr. Rout has taken on behalf of the petitioner the same grounds which had been taken before and negatived by the appellate authority. He has, in addition, taken additional grounds with regard to the non-impletion of the State as a party and with regard to the prejudice caused to the petitioner for return of some documents to the opposite party No. 1 prior to the date of hearing which were not on the record when the matter was heard. Mr. Basu has contended that concurrent findings have been recorded by the two authorities on questions of facts after rejecting some legal contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and no new grounds not taken before the appellate authority can now be taken in a certiorari proceeding. He has submitted that there is no ground for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.

( 4 ) THE Opposite Party No. 1 undoubtedly was competent to institute the case for eviction as the evidence did warrant a conclusion, as found by the original and the appellate authorities, that the land in question with the house had fallen to his share in the partition. The petitioner has taken a ground that after the expiry of the period of lease in 1973, the Opposite Party No. 1 had no right or interest in the land on which the house stood and therefore, he could not maintain a case for eviction. The same contention