Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh on 27 August, 2014
It is
relevant to notice in the context that apart from the oral
testimony of RW1 evidence of any other nature are not
forthcoming to substantiate the same. Therefore, we have no
hesitation to hold that the tenant has thoroughly failed to
establish conjunctively, the twin limbs under the second proviso
to get the benefit thereunder and to avoid an order of eviction
from being passed by the authorities below under Section 11(3)
of the Act. The evidence on record would satisfactorily establish
the bonafide need projected by the landlord and the Rent Control
Court as well as the appellate authority are perfectly justified in
concurring on a finding on the bonafide need in the case on hand.
The Revision Petitioner/tenant failed to appraise us that the
finding of factum of bonafide need recorded by the authorities
below, is perverse or has been arrived at without due
consideration of the material evidence or based on no evidence
or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that if
allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice so
as to confer on us an authority to correct it by re-appreciation of
evidence as laid down by the constitutional Bench of the Apex
R.C.R. 85 of 2018
-:18:-
Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Dilbahar
Singh [2014 (4) KLT 182 (SC)]. In the said circumstances, the
Revision Petition is only liable to fail.