' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner impugns the judgment of the High Court dated 15-10- 2009. The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No, 3 in premises which are the subject matter of this litigation. The respondent had applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent through an application dated 1-5-2004. The Rent Controller proceeded to record evidence. Although the respondent had sought enhancement of rent from Rs, 8,178 per month to Rs, 96,000 for the premises, the Rent Controller after considering the evidence fixed the fair rent at Rs, 80,000 vide order dated 4-8-2008. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal which was dismissed by an Addl. District Judge vide order dated 18-10-2008. Being dissatisfied with the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate Court, the petitioner filed CP No,S-548 of 2008 before the High Court.
This petition has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment.
2. The controversy before the Rent Controller and the appellate Court was entirely of a factual nature. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,3 has adverted to evidence produced by the petitioner itself, which points to the prevailing rent in the vicinity of the premises in question. There is other evidence also which has been fully considered by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge fixing the fair rent at Rs, 80,000. This has been affirmed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.
3. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. It is not for this Court to embark upon, reappraisal of evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the Rent Controller and the learned Addl. District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued. That the enhancement of rent should be fixed from the date of the order of the Rent Controller and not from the date of the application filed by the respondent i,e, 1-5-2004. We find no substance in the request. The same is, therefore, declined. Ln the circumstances, we find no justification for interfering in the concurrent judgments of the two Courts as confirmed by the High Courts. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.