NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Labour High Court, dated 4th July 1977, whereby the landlord's appeal for the ejectment of his tenants was rejected.
2. The petitioner had let out his shop to the respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.
150. The landlord (petitioner herein) moved the Rent Controller for the ejectment of the tenants (respondents herein) on various grounds, including default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller held that the tenants had defaulted in payment of rent from September 1972 to May 1973, and although they were allowed subsequently to deposit rent for this period in the Court of the Rent Controller, this deposit was without prejudice to the ejectment application and did not cute the default which had already occurred. He therefore, ordered the ejectment of the respondents.
3. The respondents filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Who held that the petitioner had refused to accept the rent and the respondents had established their bona fides by depositing the rent in Court. As the default in the payment of rent was not wilful, the order of the ejectment was not justified. The appeal was accordingly accepted.
4. Aggrieved by the above order, the landlord filed a second appeal before the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court agreed with the finding of the Additional District Judge that the tenants were willing to pay the rent and that it was the landlord who was not accepting it and putting them off, driving them to deposit the rent in the Court of the Rent Controller. On the point whether the time consumed by the tenants in making the deposit in Court could not be taken to imply that they were guilty of wilful default, it was observed that there could "be a difference of opinion with regard to the length of a period of default which should be treated as wilful or otherwise. In the circumstances of this case, the learned lower appellate Court has held that even if it is a default of eight months. It was not wilful. No justification has been made out for interfering with this assessm ent of the evidence by the learned lower appellate Court . . . :The learned Judge in the High Court accordingly dismissed the second appeal.
5. Before us, the learned counsel for the landlord referred to the statements of some of the witnesses in an attempt to show that both the Additional District Judge and the Judge in the High Court had incorrectly appraised the evidence and that their conclusion on the point of default was not justified. This attempt cannot succeed because appreciation of the evidence is not undertaken by this Court and the finding of the Courts' below arrived at on the basis of the appreciation of evidence is final. As the correctness of the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge and upheld by the High Court is challenged only on the above ground, we do not consider this case a fit one for interference. Hence this petition is dismissed.