// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10359/2008 Sunil Kumar Pahwa S/o Shri Girdharilal Pahwa Versus Veer Bahadur Mewara S/o Shri Pannalal and Others Date of Order ::: 22.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The landlord respondent No.1 filed an application under section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal, Kota, on the ground of personal bona-fide necessity, substantial damages to the property, default in making the payment of rent and non-user of the property. The application for eviction was decreed on the ground of non-user of property and default in making the payment of rent. So far as substantial damages and bona-fide necessity is concerned, both the grounds were // 2 // not found to be proved. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant-tenant preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Kota, which was dismissed vide order dated 15th July, 2008. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff-applicant specifically did not plead about non-user of the shop for last six months, therefore, there is perversity in the finding of both the courts below, therefore, the finding in this regard is liable to be set-aside. I have examined the impugned order passed by both the courts below in the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant did not take this plea about non-mentioning of period of six months in the written-statement. This point was also not taken before the first appellate court which is clear from the impugned order. Apart from above, it is relevant to mention that there is a reference of statement of landlord PW-2 Veer Bahadur Mewara that since July, 2004 the shop is not being used. The // 3 // application was filed in 2005 after six months from July, 2004. The issues, which were framed, were not well worded but both the courts below have examined the issue in question and recorded a finding in this regard in favour of the landlord-respondent. The question of non-user of premises is a pure question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, which cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Apart from above, the eviction decree has also been passed in favour of the landlord on the ground of default in making the payment of rent. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte – AIR 1975 SC 1297, held that the High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with finding of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. // 4 // It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim – AIR 1984 SC 38 , held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//