In exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts unless such findings are blatantly perverse or would result in gross miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate puts in appearance and files his power of attorney along with no objection from the previous counsel on behalf of petitioner. The same is taken on record.

2. Petitioner/tenant is impugning the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, i.e. the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, vide which he was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. The parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the eviction petition.

3. The brief facts, as pleaded by the landlady, while filing the petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') may be noticed as thus:-

The landlady claimed to be owner of the demised premises i.e. shop bearing No.524/3 measuring 9.5 square yards marked by letters ABCD and as shown in site plan vide sale deed vasika No.3916 dated 22.11.2006. The demised shop was rented out to the tenant in the month of October 2012 at a monthly rent of ' 10,000/-. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on grounds of non-payment of rent from 01.08.2013 till 31.01.2017, and for personal bona fide necessity as she wanted to amalgamate the area of this shop with her own TQS Mall where her sons were running a business. It was pleaded by the landlady that since the demised shop was also required for the business of her sons, the tenant be ordered to vacate it. It was also further claimed by the landlady that the demised premises was in a damaged/dilapidated condition for which construction was also required to be carried out.

4. On the basis of the material and other evidence led, both the Courts below ordered eviction of the tenant from the demised premises and ordered him to hand over the vacant possession to the landlady. Hence, the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant submits that the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality and are contrary to the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel contends that the courts below, while passing the impugned orders, failed to appreciate the material on record and the glaring contradictions in the testimony of the landlady as well as her husband. Learned counsel further submits that while on the one hand, the landlady pleaded in her eviction petition that she required the demised premises for her business, however, on the other hand, during her cross-examination she admitted that she was a home-maker and not carrying out any business. Still further, learned counsel submits that the husband of the landlady had also deposed to the contrary and stated that the demised premises was required for his son's son i.e. his grandson. Therefore, learned counsel has urged that all these contradictions, when seen and appreciated in totality, clearly reveal that the landlady had not approached the Court of law with clean hands, and thus, the eviction petition filed by the landlady was erroneously allowed. Learned counsel, still further submits that the landlady did not even plead the necessary ingredients of Section 13 of the Act in her rent petition and even the son, for whose necessity the demised shop was seemingly required, did not step into the witness box. Learned counsel, therefore, vehemently prays for setting aside the impugned orders.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material on record.

7. At the outset, it would be relevant to discuss the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in 'Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh' 2014 (9) SCC 78, has held that High Court should loathe to interfere with the findings of fact unless and until such findings are blatantly perverse or would result in gross-miscarriage of justice. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant observations and finding