Revisional jurisdiction limits prevent fact reappraisal, allowing interference only for legal error, unfair trial, or miscarriage of justice.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 35(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 is wider than section 115 CPC, but it remains confined to ensuring that the decision is according to law and does not cause miscarriage of justice. It does not permit the High Court to reappraise evidence or convert revision into a rehearing on facts merely because it disagrees with concurrent findings below. Interference is justified only for jurisdictional error, improper admission or exclusion of evidence, denial of a fair opportunity, misplacement of the burden of proof, or similar defects showing an unfair trial. The High Court erred in disturbing concurrent factual findings on an incorrect assumption about a material exhibit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional power under section 35(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, could reappraise the evidence and substitute its own finding of fact for concurrent findings of the courts below.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 35(1) was held to be wider than the limited supervisory jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it was still confined to ensuring that the decision was according to law and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. A revision does not confer a right of rehearing on facts comparable to an appeal. The Court approved the principle that interference is justified where there is want of jurisdiction, improper admission of evidence, denial of proper opportunity, misplacement of burden of proof, or some other defect showing that the unsuccessful party did not receive a proper trial according to law. Mere disagreement with the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is not enough. The High Court had also proceeded on an erroneous assumption that a material exhibit had not been considered, when in fact it had been taken into account by the appellate court.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in disturbing the concurrent finding of fact, and its revisional order was liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction to satisfy whether a decision is according to law permits interference to prevent miscarriage of justice, but it does not authorise the High Court to convert revision into a rehearing on facts or to substitute its own view merely because it differs from the concurrent findings below.

---