MEHR DIN Versus NAZIR AHMAD

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .‑‑The petitioner and respondent No.1 were transferees of different portions of the same premises. The petitioner moved an application before the Rent Controller for the eviction of respondent No.1 from a part of the premises on the ground that the said part had been transferred to him but was in the occupation of respondent No.1. The Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that the part in dispute had not been transferred to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who dismissed the same after affirming the ‑finding of the Rent Controller. The petitioner then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. The question whether the part in dispute was transferred t .the petitioner is one of fact. There are concurrent findings of all the Courts against him on this question. We find no reason to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed.

M.I./M‑508/S Petition dismissed.