L.N. Chhangani, J.
1. This is a revision-application by the plaintiff-landlords legal representatives against the appellate judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated 25-4-70 affirming the judgment of the Munsif West, Ajmer, dated 20-9-59 allowing the defendant tenants application under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.)
2. The relevant facts are these. The defendant-respondents were tenants of Khanchand the husband of petitioner No I arid father of petitioners Nos. 2 & 3. He filed a suit for rent and ejectment against the respondents and obtained a decree for ejectment on 8-11-56 on the ground of his bonafide and reasonable requirement. The decree was upheld in first appeal and in second appeal. The tenants vacated the property QQ 31-8-67. On 23-2-68 the defendant tenants submitted an application under Section 15 of the Act praying to be placed in possession of the suit property on the ground that the plaintiff-landlords failed to occupy within a period of if months from the date of vacation and let them to other tenants. The application was opposed by the petitioners. The trial Judge after recording evidence, accepted the application by an elaborate order and directed that the defendants be put in possession of the suit remises. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge. They have filed the present revision application.
3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The two courts below relied upon the evidence of the defendant Haroomal who stated that the suit premises had not been occupied by the plaintiff-petitioners within 2 months of the date of the vacation. They considered the statement of Channomal petitioner who vaguely stated that after the vacation they got repairs effected and then occupied the premises and that it took about 20 days in getting the repairs effected. According to them, this statement was not sufficient to contradict the defendant Haroomal's statement. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statement of Haroomal does not provide direct evidence of the premises remaining unoccupied as he did not go inside the house. I have considered the statement of Haroomal and do not find any good reason to disagree with the appraisement of his statement by the two courts below. The statement does provide evidence in support of the application and the two courts below have relied upon the evidence.
4. The finding of fact cannot be permitted to be challenged in revision. The revision is without force and is dismissed.