NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4943 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 2648 of 2007)

Sunil Kumar & Anr.      … Appellant(s)

Versus

Anil Kumar        ..Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.   

2.  This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  Judgment

and  final  order  dated  1st of  December,  2006

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

at Chandigarh in CR No. 6420 of 2006, by which

the High Court had dismissed the Civil Revision

case in limine.   

3. The respondent filed an application for ejectment

of the appellant from the demised premises inter

alia on the ground of non-payment of rent, sub-

1

letting and bonafide requirement of the demised

premises before the Rent Controller.   

4. The learned Rent Controller rejected the claim of

the respondent for eviction on the ground of non-

payment  of  the  rent,  subletting  but  on  the

ground of bonafide requirement, he had allowed

the eviction against the appellant.   

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent

Controller,  the  appellant  filed  an appeal  before

the  Appellate  Authority,  Jallandhar  and  the

Appellate Authority, by its Judgment dated 15th

of November, 2006 dismissed the appeal  of the

appellant.   

6. Against  the  aforesaid  orders  of  the  Appellate

Authority as well  as of the Rent Controller, the

appellant  filed  a  Civil  Revision  case,  as

mentioned herein.  By the impugned order, the

said  Revision  case  was  also  dismissed  on  the

ground that there was no perversity or infirmity

in the orders of the Tribunals below.  Before us

2

also, the learned counsel  could not satisfy that

the concurrent findings of fact, as affirmed by the

High  Court,  were  vitiated  by  infirmity  or

perversity.   

7. Accordingly,  we  do  not  find  any  ground  to

interfere  with such concurrent  findings  of  fact.

The appeal is thus dismissed.            

8. We direct that the appellant shall be permitted to

keep  the  premises  in  question  for  a  further

period of nine months from this date subject to

filing the usual undertaking in this court within

four  weeks  from  today  and  on  expiry  of  this

period,  he  shall  vacate  and  handover  peaceful

possession  of  the  premises  in  question  to  the

respondent. No order as to costs.

…………………….J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

3

New Delhi; ……………………J. August 8, 2008.    [Aftab Alam]

4