JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 30.08.2008 passed by learned Appellate Authority, whereby, the judgment of dismissal dated 22.05.2007 passed by learned Rent Controller, was reversed and thereupon, eviction of the petitioners-tenants, from the demised premises, was ordered.

2. The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

It was pleaded case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioners-tenants are statutory tenants under them, at a monthly rent of Rs.300/-, in the shop, as detailed in the site plan, annexed with the petition. They claimed arrears of rent @ Rs.300/- per month, for the period 01.06.1999 to 31.01.2001, to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. Besides the same, also it was pleaded that there is bonafide requirement of the demised shop for the running of business of cloth merchant by Mahesh Kumar, who is a graduate and unemployed.

3. Reply was filed, wherein, preliminary objections were taken, thereby, disputing the maintainability of the petition and also challenged the locus standi of the landlords to file the eviction petition and that the eviction petition is false, frivolous and vexatious, which has been moved, with the sole motive to pressurize the tenant to enhance the rent.

4. On merits, it is not disputed that the answering respondents are the statutory tenants of the shop in dispute. Also, it was denied that agreed rate of rent is Rs.300/-. It was also submitted that respondents (tenants) have tendered the demanded rent w.e.f 01.06.1999 to 30.04.2001 for 23 months, amounting to Rs.6900/-, along with interest and costs, assessed by the Court and the same has been received by the landlord. It was denied that the shop in question was required for personal bonafide necessity.

5. Rejoinder was filed.

6. After framing of the issues, the evidence was adduced by both the parties.

7. So far as, plea of arrears of rent is concerned, as arrears of rent at demanded rate and for the demanded period were paid, it no longer subsists, but however, on appraisal of the evidence, learned Rent Controller concluded that ground for personal necessity is not made out and consequently, dismissed the ejectment petition.

8. Being aggrieved, the landlords filed the appeal. Learned Appellate Authority, having adverted to the contentions, had re-appraised the evidence, brought on record. Making detailed reference to the evidence, brought on record, learned Appellate Authority had accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment of dismissal of the ejectment petition and therefore, ordered the tenants to handover the vacant possession of the shop, within a period of 30 days.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority, the petitioners-tenants have filed the present revision petition.

10. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

11. Throughout the arguments, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that approach of learned Appellate Authority, vis-a-vis, determination of material question of fact and law, was erroneous. In fact, the Appellate Authority overlooked the manner of appreciation of 'bonafides' as well as their ' need' for the shop in question. The manner of shop in question allegedly required and the fact of raising chobara, during the pendency of the eviction petition and availability of the same with the landlord and also about the availability of adjoining shop, after it was vacated by Bishamber Dayal-tenant, have been completely overlooked. Also, it was submitted that Appellate Authority never took into consideration the clear move about the partition having set up by the other side and the arrival of the compromise dated 24.02.2007, vide which, the shops were stated to have been given to the share of children of Murari Lal.

12. In fact, it is submitted that from the evidence on record, it stands established that all the steps were taken to secure eviction, in any manner. The 'malafides', as such, on the part of the landlord, do stand