Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. Eviction of the petitioner-tenant was ordered on 12.10.2011 by the Rent Controller as grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent as also of personal necessity were adjudicated against him. The Appellate Authority under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) affirmed the adjudication made by the Rent Controller on all counts and thus, concurrent findings returned by the Appellate Authority sealed the fate of the tenant against eviction. Plea of the petitioner-tenant that all the issues were not decided by the Rent Controller and were not properly dealt with even by the Appellate Authority causing great prejudice to the tenant, is clearly misfounded. Following issues were framed by the Rent Controller: "1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the eviction of respondent on the ground of personal necessity? OPA 2. Whether the present petition is not legally maintainable? OPR 2-A. Whether the petitioners are entitled to rent, if so at what rate of rent? OPA Relief." 2. Issues No. 1 and 2-A were discussed together and after detailed discussion, were adjudicated against the tenant; whereas issue No. 2 was dealt with separately but was again decided against the tenant. Petition of the landlord sequelly had succeeded when eviction was ordered and tenant was called upon to deliver vacant possession of the property in dispute within two months of the order of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority also did not omit to discuss any of the issues mentioned earlier and findings of the Rent Controller after detailed discussion of argument of counsel for the parties on all the issues, were affirmed. Claim of the tenant that the authorities below had dealt with the matter very casually without going deep into the merits of all the issues, is devoid of any merit. 3. Argument of the counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that neither the rate of rent was correctly determined by the Rent Controller nor entitlement of the landlords was adjudicated as per the record on the file. 3. Argument of the counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that neither the rate of rent was correctly determined by the Rent Controller nor entitlement of the landlords was adjudicated as per the record on the file. Dealing with issue No. 2-A with regard to rate of rent as also qua the quantum of arrears of rent payable by the tenant to the landlords, the Rent Controller has left no gaping holes or missing links in discussing the entire spectrum of factual matrix put forth by the parties while evaluating evidence led by them in support and sustenance of their respective pleas. 4. Property in litigation is a double storey shop consisting of one room and one Chobara constructed thereon, site plan Ex. Al dated 3.3.2009 whereof has been proved by draftsman Jagdev Sharma (AW3). Landlord Rahul Bansal (AW2) himself had entered the witness box and bravely faced the cross-examination effected on him at length and his testimony is supportive of the cause of the landlords without any remissness. 5. Rate of rent was seriously in dispute between the parties because both of them had put forth different rent notes. Rent Note (Mark-A) of the landlords had recited the rent to be ` 3,000/- per month, whereas one propounded by the tenant viz. (Mark C-1) had shown the rate of rent to be `1,200/- per month. Rent Note (Mark-A) introduced by the landlords was proved by its scribe Jagdish Chand (AW4) who proved due execution of the same while stating that the tenant had took the shop in dispute from landlord Rahul Bansal on rent @ ` 3,000/- per month w.e.f. 8.9.1999 and one month rent was paid by the tenant to the landlord in his presence vide the said rent note. It is also clarified by this witness that the tenant had also agreed to pay the electricity bills and payment of house-tax. The deed writer did not leave anything to chance and had elaborately explained that the rent note scribed by him was read over and explained to the parties thoroughly who after understanding the same and admitting it to be true and correct, had then executed the same by signing it. Excerpt of his register in this regard is Ex. A2. 6. Excerpt of his register in this regard is Ex. A2. 6. It is to be noticed further that Kewal Krishan and Ashok Kumar are the attesting witnesses and Kewal Krishan had even entered the witness box as AW1. The deed-writer (AW4) had also made entry in this regard in his register at serial No. 816 dated 7.9.1999. 7. Rent Note dated 10.7.2001 (Mark C-1) produced by tenant Rakesh Kumar (RW1) though was sought to be established as a genuine document even by calling handwriting and fingerprint expert Navdeep Gupta (RW2) but there were apparent missing links and gaping holes therein, which were meticulously noticed by the Rent Controller for coming to a finding of fact that the Rent Note (Mark C-1) propounded by the tenant was a fake and forged one. Neither Kewal Krishan (AW1) nor landlord Rahul Bansal (AW2) had admitted their signatures on Rent Note (Mark C-1) produced by the tenant. Even said rent note of the tenant did not bear any date thereon. It is interesting to note that the date put by the Notary Public thereon is 10.7.2011, whereas entry of stamp vendor on its reverse side depicted the date as 18.10.1999. Had the Notary Public been examined by the tenant, the things could have been transparent even further but the respondent-tenant for the reasons unexplained by him, did not bring said Notary Public in the witness box. Sequelly, there is no evidence that the Rent Note (Mark C-1) had ever been entered in his register by the Notary Public and there is no such recital either in the said rent note to this effect. It is very important to notice that even the respondent-tenant had no courage to depose that the Notary Public had entered the Rent Note (Mark C-1) in his register. Even the tenant could not muster enough evidence to state that landlord Rahul Bansal had signed the Rent Note (Mark C-1) in his presence and had even appended his signatures in the register of the Notary Public. 8. On the other hand, in his pointed and probing cross-examination, he could not escape but conceded that at the time of execution of the Rent Note (Mark-A) propounded by the landlord, the scribe had obtained his signatures even in his register and that he had also appended his signatures on the Rent Note (Mark-A). 9. 8. On the other hand, in his pointed and probing cross-examination, he could not escape but conceded that at the time of execution of the Rent Note (Mark-A) propounded by the landlord, the scribe had obtained his signatures even in his register and that he had also appended his signatures on the Rent Note (Mark-A). 9. Noticing all these infirmities in the execution of Rent Note (Mark C-1), it was rightly rejected while Rent Note (Mark-A) was rightly affirmed as genuine and real document governing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Thus, the rent @ ` 3,000/- per month with liability of the tenant to pay electricity bill as well as house-tax was rightly adjudicated by the Rent Controller, which finding was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 10. Similarly, on the ground of personal necessity, making detailed discussion of each and every aspect, the Rent Controller did not mince words and came to a firm finding that the ground of personal necessity put forth by the landlords was genuine and that the tenant was liable to be evicted on that ground as well. Rather, in pointed cross-examination of landlord Rahul Bansal (AW2), the tenant could not bring anything even in whispers that the landlords were not in personal necessity of the property in dispute. In short, more the cross-examination by the tenant on landlord Rahul Bansal (AW2) became close and scrutinizing, more transparently and effectively has emerged the case of the landlords justifying eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity of the landlords. 11. As tender of rent as demanded by the landlord was made, said ground of non-payment of rent did not survive for eviction of the tenant and only ground of personal necessity remained for adjudication. 12. Since there is concurrent findings inter alia on both the counts viz. ground of arrears of rent as well as of personal necessity, in view of Full Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2014 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 162 : 2014 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 210 : 2014 (4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 692 : Civil Appeal No. 6177 of 2004 decided on 27.8.2014 titled Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh, there is very narrow scope for the petitioner-tenant to protect his possession and to thwart the order of eviction concurrently operating against him. 13. 13. In view of the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller as also of the Appellate Authority both on the ground of rate of rent as also on the ground of personal necessity, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, affirming the impugned orders of the Rent Controller as also of the Appellate Authority, this petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.