' This writ petition has been filed to assail the concurrent judgments and orders of the Tribunals below. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default and personal need. The plea taken by the petitioner/ tenant was that he was a mortgagee and not a tenant. The two Tribunals below have discussed the evidence on the record, which was oral in nature, and came to the conclusion that the mortgage was not established. The entry of the petitioner through the respondent/landlord was admitted. It was held that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The denial of relationship by the tenant/petitioner was, thus, held by the Tribunals below to be contumacious. For these reasons, the ejectment petition was allowed. It was also held that nonpayment of rent stood admitted. Therefore the ejectment could otherwise be straightaway ordered.
2. The main question for consideration of which this writ petition was admitted, stands already resolved by the decision of the Supreme Court. It has now been held that there was no defect in the appointment of an Additional Executive Officer of the Cantonment as the Additional Rent Controller under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963.
3. Insofar as the challenge to decision on merits is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Tribunals below in the exercise of my constitutional jurisdiction. The inference drawn by the, Tribunals below from the evidence on the record, is such as could have been drawn by a reasonable person. The High Court itself would not substitute its opinion for that of the Tribunals below. Writ jurisdiction is not akin to appellate jurisdiction nor does it amount to rehearing of the entire case. In these circumstances, I see no justification to interfere and would accordingly dismiss this writ petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The petitioner is, however, allowed three months' time to vacate the premises.