Revisional jurisdiction in rent matters cannot reopen concurrent findings unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence.

In revision under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the supervisory court's role is confined to testing legality and propriety, not reappreciating evidence like a second appeal. Concurrent findings of fact may be disturbed only if perverse, unsupported by evidence, or manifestly unjust. On the evidence discussed, the tenant's cessation of occupation and shift to another residential house were treated as established, and the challenge to reasonably sufficient alternative accommodation failed because the record did not support the contrary view. The legal principle emphasised is that eviction findings based on evidence should not be displaced in revision absent perversity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could reappreciate evidence and disturb concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority; (ii) Whether the grounds of eviction based on cessation of occupation and acquisition of reasonably sufficient accommodation were established.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could reappreciate evidence and disturb concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is confined to examining the legality or propriety of the order under challenge. It is wider than the narrow jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it does not convert revision into a second appeal. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or otherwise manifestly unjust. The evidence had been fully appreciated by the two courts below and supported the finding that the tenant had shifted to another house acquired in the name of his wife.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence or in upsetting the concurrent findings of fact.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds of eviction based on cessation of occupation and acquisition of reasonably sufficient accommodation were established.

Analysis: The courts below found, on oral and documentary evidence, that the tenant had ceased to occupy the demised premises and had shifted with his family to another residential house. The High Court's view that the alternative accommodation was not reasonably sufficient was rejected as unsupported by the evidence, particularly because the two houses were of nearly the same capacity and the record did not establish the larger family strength assumed by the High Court. The material on record supported the statutory grounds of eviction.

Conclusion: The grounds of eviction were proved and the order of eviction was liable to be restored.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the eviction orders passed by the subordinate authorities were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, a superior court cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are shown to be perverse or patently illegal; the existence of reasonably sufficient alternative accommodation and cessation of occupation must be determined on the evidence, not by reappreciation as in appeal.

---