Judgment 1. The tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the courts below on the ground that the premises in dispute are required for bona fide use and occupation of the one of the landlord who has retired. 2. Challenging the said concurrent finding, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the application for additional evidence, Annexure P.1 has not been decided by the learned appellate authority. By virtue of the said application the tenant wants to show that in the municipal record of the house-tax survey and assessment, two shops and third shop with gallery and garage assessed are separately. 3. The petitioner has prayed for the appointment of a Local commissioner as well as to lead additional evidence regarding the site plan referred in the statement recorded in the previous litigation between the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent and another tenant Devi ram. The learned Appellate Authority has decided another application for additional evidence filed by the petitioner on 13.1.2006. 4. Assuming such application, Annexure P.1 has not been decided that may not effect the controversy raised in the present petition. It is the categorical case of the respondent (landlord) that the petitioner is a tenant in a shop at ground floor. On the ground floor out of two portions adjacent to the rented portion, one is being used for passage for the entry into the remaining floor behind the shop in dispute and also for entry to other floors, whereas the other portion which is immediately adjacent to the shop in this suit is being used as garage by the petitioner for parking the family car which was got vacated through the court by the late mother of the petitioner. The petitioner, herein, has denied the user of the two portions in the written statement filed by him. Thus it was open to the tenant to lead evidence before the Rent Controller. Having failed to do so, the application for additional evidence before the first Appellate court was only to fill up the lacunae. Therefore,the said application does not warrant any consideration. 5. It is concurrent finding of both the courts below that Arun kumar has retired and he has no source of income or any business and he requires business to do for maintaining his family. His family consists of his wife and two children. 6. Therefore,the said application does not warrant any consideration. 5. It is concurrent finding of both the courts below that Arun kumar has retired and he has no source of income or any business and he requires business to do for maintaining his family. His family consists of his wife and two children. 6. Therefore, the finding recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or material irregularity which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.