Civil Revision No. 2458 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** Civil Revision No. 2458 of 2005. Date of decision : 11.12.2006 Kulwant Singh ... Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh and others ... Respondents. *** Present: Mr. D.P.S.Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. ... CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA JUDGMENT Challenge in the present civil revision is to the order of ejectment passed by the Courts below on the ground that the petitioner is causing nuisance in the premises in dispute. Civil Revision No. 2458 of 2005 2 It has been found by both the Courts below that there are a number of tenants in the building in question and all of them are doing the business of goldsmith. The petitioner is also doing the business of goldsmith on the 2nd floor of the 5-storeyed building. The top storey is to be used for melting of gold by the tenants but the petitioner is using coal bhatti and gas gun by placing the same in the passage itself. The use of coal bhatti and gas gun in the passage has rightly been found to be a case of nuisance on the basis of which an order of ejectment has been passed by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehement argued before this Court that since the landlord and other tenants are in the same business, therefore, the petitioner cannot be ordered to be evicted for using the coal bhatti It is alleged that the coal bhatti and the gas gun are being used in the tenanted premises and not in the passage. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact after examining the entire evidence that the petitioner is using coal bhatti and gas gun in the passage itself. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence on record. The use of coal bhatti and gas gun is a cause of nuisance. It could not be pointed out that any evidence has been misread or any particular evidence was not taken into account while returning the concurrent finding by the Courts. Consequently, I find no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the Courts below which may warrant any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE December 11, 2006 RS