Rent control revision is limited to legality and propriety; High Court cannot re-weigh evidence like a first appeal court.

In rent control revision, the High Court may examine legality, regularity, correctness and propriety of the findings below, but it cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a second first appellate court merely because a different view is possible. Interference is confined to cases of illegality, perversity, misreading, non-consideration of material evidence, unsupported findings, or procedural irregularity. The expressions "legality or propriety", "regularity, correctness, legality or propriety", and "legality, regularity or propriety" expand revisional supervision beyond Section 115 CPC, but they do not confer full appellate jurisdiction or authorize a complete rehearing on facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the rent control statutes, can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact merely because it takes a different view. (ii) Whether the expressions "legality or propriety", "regularity, correctness, legality or propriety", and "legality, regularity or propriety" confer a revisional power as wide as appellate jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the rent control statutes, can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact merely because it takes a different view.

Analysis: The revisional power under the relevant rent control enactments is wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it is not equivalent to appellate power and does not make the High Court a second court of first appeal. The use of expressions such as "legality", "propriety", "correctness", and "regularity" permits examination of whether the finding below is supported by legal evidence and whether there is illegality, perversity, misreading, non-consideration of material evidence, or procedural irregularity. It does not permit a fresh reappraisal of the entire evidence merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to upset findings of fact simply because it prefers a different view; interference is confined to cases where the finding is not according to law.

Issue (ii): Whether the expressions "legality or propriety", "regularity, correctness, legality or propriety", and "legality, regularity or propriety" confer a revisional power as wide as appellate jurisdiction.

Analysis: Though the three statutes differ in phraseology, their revisional schemes are substantially similar. "Legality" refers to conformity with law, "propriety" and "correctness" denote what is proper and legally sound, and "regularity" concerns procedural fairness and compliance with natural justice. These expressions expand revisional supervision beyond jurisdictional error alone, but they do not obliterate the distinction between revision and appeal or authorize a full rehearing on facts.

Conclusion: The revisional power is broader than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but narrower than appellate jurisdiction; it may correct legal error, perversity, or gross injustice, not merely a different factual appreciation.

Final Conclusion: The scope of revision under the concerned rent control laws is confined to legality, regularity, correctness, and propriety, and the High Court must not act as a second first appellate court.

Ratio Decidendi: In rent control revision, the High Court may correct findings of fact only when they are illegal, perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by procedural irregularity, and not merely because a different view of the evidence is possible.

---