Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-In this writ petition the petitioner landlord tenant has challenged the orders passed by the Rent Tribunal dated 10.11.2004 by which the petition filed by the respondent under Section 10 for immediate possession on the ground of being a senior citizen has been allowed and a decree for eviction passed in favour of the landlord. 2. The Judgment and decree of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 10.11.2004 was challenged by the petitioner tenant in appeal before the appellate Tribunal and the appellate Tribunal by the impugned Judgment dated 011.2005 has dismissed the appeal and hence this writ petition. As Section 19 of the Act of 2001 prohibits any further appeal or revision against the said Judgment and decree of the appellate Tribunal is held to be final. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Non-petitioner No. 2 who has been allowed by the order dated 06.01.2006 represent the respondents. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned Judgment on the ground that the petitioner has been ordered to vacate the premises on the petition filed in terms of Section 10 by the non-petitioner claiming that she is a senior citizen. It is submitted that the respondent landlord has alternative accommodation available which is more suitable to the respondent landlord looking to her age and health. It has also been contended that the petitioner is residing in the house which is owned jointly by her and her son. He, therefore, submits that Section 10 of the Act, 2001 has no application in the facts and circumstances. 5. The provisions of Section 10 of the Act reads as under:- “10. Right of landlord to recover immediate possession in certain cases. He, therefore, submits that Section 10 of the Act, 2001 has no application in the facts and circumstances. 5. The provisions of Section 10 of the Act reads as under:- “10. Right of landlord to recover immediate possession in certain cases. .(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or usage, .(i) a landlord shall, on a petition being filed in this behalf in the Rent Tribunal, be entitled to recover immediate possession of a residential premises, if he, .(a) isor was a member of any armed forces or paramilitary forces of the Union and aforesaid petition is filed within one year prior to or subsequent to the date of retirement, release or discharge, as the case may be, or within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later, .(b) isor was an employee of the Central Government or the State Government or local bodies or State owned corporations and files the aforesaid petition within a period of one year prior to or subsequent to the date of his retirement or within a period of one year from the date of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later; .(c) has become a senior citizen and files the aforesaid petition after the expiry of three years from the date of letting out of premises; .(ii) a dependent legal representative of a landlord, who was a member of any armed forces or paramilitary forces of the Union and has died during the course of his employment, shall on a petition being filed in this behalf in the Rent Tribunal, be entitled to recover immediate possession of the residential premises, if the petition is filed by him within a period of one year after the death of such member or within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is later; (iii) after the death of a landlord, his window shall, on a petition being filed in this behalf in the Rent Tribunal be entitled to recover immediate possession of the residential premises, if the petition is filed by her within a period of one year from the date of death of her husband. (2) Where the landlord has let out more than one premises, the petition under Sub-section (1) shall be maintainable in respect of one rented premises only to be chosen by the landlord and petition under Sub-section (1) shall be maintainable only if the petitioner is not residing in his own premises in the same municipal area. .(3) xxxxxxx .(4) xxxxxxx 6. In the instant case the petition has been filed by the respondent landlord on the ground that the petitioner is a senior citizen and she may be granted a decree of eviction for the disputed premises as she is residing with her son in the premises which is owned by the said son. .7. The learned Tribunal after considering the relevant provisions has taken into consideration the relevant considerations for the applicability of Section 10(1) (C) of the Act, 2001 namely:- 1. That the applicant is a senior citizen. 2. That the petition has been filed after three years of having the given the premises on rent. 3. That the applicant landlord has choice for seeking eviction from any one of the premises owned by such landlord. 4. That the applicant landlord is not residing in a premises owned by the said landlord within the same municipal area. 5. That the applicant landlord is the owner of the premises in dispute. 8. The learned Tribunal has found that the applicant Smt. Shail Bhargava is a senior citizen. It is also found that the disputed premises were given on rent more than three years prior to the filing of the application. 9. It also found that the applicant does not reside in any premises owned by the applicant but instead resides in the premises owned by her son. In view of these findings the learned Tribunal has passed the decree for immediate possession in favour of the landlord in terms of Section 10 of the Act. The learned appellate Tribunal has concurred with the aforesaid finding. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal in favour of the landlord respondent-herein. I find no reason to interfere with the Judgment as in my view the same does not suffers from any error apparent on the face of record. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the landlord on her affidavit. I find no reason to interfere with the Judgment as in my view the same does not suffers from any error apparent on the face of record. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the landlord on her affidavit. It is submitted that by means of cross-examination it could have been proved that the house where the landlord is residing his own and not of her son. So far as the above submission is concerned the learned Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had himself filed a copy of the sale-deed of the house which shows that it was purchased in the name of the son. In view of the aforesaid when the petitioner has himself filed the document showing the title of the son of the landlord there was no need for any cross-examination. 11. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that an alternative accommodation which is more suitable to the landlord is available on the ground floor does not merit consideration under Section 10, in my view no inquiry regarding suitability of the premises for which the choice has been made by the applicant is required to be made. On the contrary the relevant consideration is that the landlady is not residing in a premises owned by her within the same municipal area at the time when the application is made as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 10. In view of the aforesaid the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is without merit as the Tribunal has found that the landlady is not residing in any premises owned by her but instead with her son. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed summarily. The stay application does not survive and the same is dismissed. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that 30 days time may be allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The prayer is allowed on the condition that the petitioner would submit an undertaking before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within one week from today that the petitioner would handover the vacant possession to the landlady. 13. Subject to the aforesaid this writ petition and stay application are dismissed summarily.