JUDGMENT Lisa Gill, J. - This revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.08.2016, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, as well as order dated 08.03.2017, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, whereby ejectment of the petitioner-tenant (now represented by his legal representatives), was ordered on the ground of non-payment of rent. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'act'), seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal bona fide necessity. It is pleaded that the property in question was let out to the petitioner-tenant at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month by the original landlords/owners namely Sukhdev Singh, Tarsem Singh and Prem Singh sons of Hari Singh, vide rent note dated 26.06.1995. Respondent-landlord claims to have purchased the property from the said landlords through a registered sale deed dated 10.12.2004 along with Dr. Prem Jyoti, sister-in-law of the applicant in equal shares. The property in question was claimed to have fallen to the share of the applicant-landlord. It is thus pleaded that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. It is pleaded that rent had not been paid by the tenant from the date of purchase of the property i.e. 10.12.2004. It is further pleaded that the respondent-landlord required the premises along with two other adjoining shops for running a Veterinary Hospital as he is a qualified veterinary doctor. A hospital, it is stated has to be constructed after demolishing the other two shops, as well. Hence the present application. 3. Petitioner-tenant, resisted the petition while taking a specific stand that respondent-Raj Mohan, was not the owner or landlord of the property in question. Other averments were also denied. Dismissal of the petition was prayed for. 4. Rejoinder was not filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur. 1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?OPA 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of bona fide necessity of the applicant?OPA 3. Relief. 5. Learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, on considering the evidence on record concluded that the premises in question had indeed been purchased by Raj Mohan, vide registered sale deed dated 10.12.2004. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of bona fide necessity of the applicant?OPA 3. Relief. 5. Learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur, on considering the evidence on record concluded that the premises in question had indeed been purchased by Raj Mohan, vide registered sale deed dated 10.12.2004. The property in question, is found to be a part of the property purchased vide said sale deed. Identity of the demised premises was concluded to be established. It is observed that though the sale deed is regarding four rooms and it is described to be residential property, there is nevertheless an admission by the respondent that he had taken the shop from Sukhdev Singh, Tarsem Singh and Prem Singh and that the tenant had not paid rent to anyone after 2004. Reference was also made to the cross-examination of the tenant. Ejectment of the petitioner was ordered on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, though no merit was found in the ground of personal bona fide necessity raised by the respondent-landlord. 6. Appeal as well as the cross-objections filed by the respondent-landlord, were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, vide impugned order dated 08.03.2017. 7. Aggrieved therefrom, present revision petition has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that respondent-Raj-Mohan, is not proved to be the owner of the property in question on the basis of the evidence on record. It is contended that the sale deed dated 10.12.2004, is in respect to a residential house, whereas the demised premises is admittedly a shop. Both the learned Courts below, it is submitted have ignored this important fact and have proceeded merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises to hold the respondent to be the owner/landlord of the property in question. The petitioner, it is submitted has been a tenant on the demised premises since the year 1995 and he was never informed about the sale of the property either by the original owners or the alleged subsequent purchaser. Moreover, there is a recital in the alleged sale deed regarding possession of the premises being handed over and there is no mention regarding the tenancy over the said premises. Moreover, there is a recital in the alleged sale deed regarding possession of the premises being handed over and there is no mention regarding the tenancy over the said premises. This in itself reveals that the sale deed relied upon by respondent to prove his ownership, is of no avail to him and cannot confer any title upon the said respondent qua the demised premises. Furthermore, the respondent-landlord failed to examine the original owner of the demised premises and neither did he himself appear in the witness box. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, however submits that there is no discrepancy regarding the identity of the property. Even though the sale deed in question, it is submitted, refers to the property as a residential house, but it is a matter of record that there are four rooms which are mentioned in the sale deed and existence of the shops is very much evident. Both the learned Courts below have rightly ordered eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. It is thus prayed that this petition be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their assistance. 11. Petitioner-tenant, has laid down the foundation of his case on the argument that the respondent is not proved to be the owner/landlord as the sale deed dated 10.12.2004 on the basis of which the landlord claims title, does not pertain to the demised premises. However, there is no merit in this argument. There is no denial by the petitioner of the fact that a rent note dated 26.06.1995 was executed between him and Sukhdev Singh, Tarsem Singh and Prem Singh, the original owners of the demised premises. It is further a matter of record that the dimensions of the demised premises, tally with the boundaries of the property mentioned in the sale deed dated 10.12.2004. There is a concurrent finding of both the learned Courts below to the effect that boundaries of the property on the three sides mentioned in the sale deed and the rent note tallied with each other. They also tallied with the dimensions in the rent note. It is a matter of record that RW-2-Pawan Kapil, produced the site plan, Ex.R-1. There is a concurrent finding of both the learned Courts below to the effect that boundaries of the property on the three sides mentioned in the sale deed and the rent note tallied with each other. They also tallied with the dimensions in the rent note. It is a matter of record that RW-2-Pawan Kapil, produced the site plan, Ex.R-1. Even as per the said site plan, the boundaries/sides of the premises in dispute tallied with the property as mentioned in the sale deed, Ex.A-3. Doubtlessly, in the sale deed dated 10.12.2004, Ex.A-3, the property is described as a house, but it is rightly concluded by both the learned Courts below that the same is irrelevant as the identity of the property is duly established on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any evidence to the contrary. 12. Learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, referred to the response given by the petitioner-tenant to some of the suggestions/questions put to him in cross-examination. The said responses have been correctly termed to be mischievous and merely a bid to conceal the identity of the property. RW-2-Pawan Kapil, feigned ignorance about the persons in possession of one of the adjoining shops. Possession of the respondent-landlord over the adjoining shop has not been denied by the petitioner. It is further a matter of record that the landlord had filed an eviction petition against one Vinod Kumar, which was allowed. The said ejectment order against Vinod Kumar has attained finality. Vinod Kumar, was in possession of the shop adjoining the demised premises. 13. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the petitioner, who waspresent in person on 20.11.2019, when this matter was taken up, candidly admitted that an adjoining shop has been got vacated by the landlord from one Vinod Kumar. It is the case of the petitioner-tenant himself that he has not paid the rent of the demised premises to anyone after the year 2004. 14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, both the learned Courts below have correctly held the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, besides identity of the property to be established and ejectment of the petitioner has been correctly ordered on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. 15. 14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, both the learned Courts below have correctly held the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, besides identity of the property to be established and ejectment of the petitioner has been correctly ordered on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. 15. The question regarding the personal bona fide necessity of the landlord need not detain this Court as this ground was rejected by the learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur and the same was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur. This finding has not been challenged by the respondent-landlord. Argument on behalf of the petitioner that the petition itself should be rejected on this ground itself is devoid of any merit and is noticed only to be rejected. 16. Both the learned Courts below have rendered well reasoned and logical decisions on a sound appreciation of evidence on record. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 378 that this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction would normally not interfere in concurrent findings of fact until and unless it is shown that there is gross misreading of evidence or ignoring of material evidence on record which renders the finding of the courts below to be perverse. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders dated 20.08.2016, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gurdaspur and order dated 08.03.2017 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur, which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 18. No other argument has been raised. 19. Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. No orders need to be passed in any other pending application in view of the dismissal of the revision petition.