Revisional jurisdiction and eviction grounds require restraint: concurrent facts stand unless wholly unreasonable, and nuisance or waste must be proved.

A revisional court under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 exercises supervisory jurisdiction limited to legality, regularity and propriety, and cannot reappraise evidence to replace concurrent findings of fact unless they are illegal, irregular or wholly unreasonable. The article also explains that eviction on nuisance requires proof of actionable private nuisance affecting neighbouring occupiers, while waste must show acts likely to materially impair the building's value or utility. On the facts discussed, the alleged nuisance was only trivial and the alleged damage was not material, so the eviction order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, could reappraise evidence and disturb concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. (ii) Whether the grounds of nuisance and waste under Section 10(2)(iv) and Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act were established so as to justify eviction.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, could reappraise evidence and disturb concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 22 is supervisory in nature and is confined to examining legality, regularity and propriety. Even where the language is wide, the High Court does not acquire appellate jurisdiction and cannot interfere merely because it takes a different view of the evidence. Reappraisal of evidence is permissible only to test whether the factual conclusion is wholly unreasonable, not to substitute a fresh conclusion on facts.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the limits of revisional jurisdiction and was not justified in overturning the concurrent findings.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds of nuisance and waste under Section 10(2)(iv) and Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act were established so as to justify eviction.

Analysis: For nuisance, the Act contemplates actionable private nuisance affecting occupiers of the same building or neighbouring buildings, and mere inconvenience or trivial noise is insufficient. For waste, eviction is warranted only if the tenant's acts are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building. On the evidence accepted by the fact-finding courts, the alleged nuisance was not shown to be actionable and the alleged damage was only trivial, without material impairment to the building's value or utility.

Conclusion: Neither nuisance nor waste was proved to the standard required for eviction.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order made by the High Court could not stand, and the tenant succeeded because the revisional court had impermissibly reassessed concurrent factual findings on grounds not established on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court under a rent control statute exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot substitute its own factual conclusions for concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are shown to be illegal, irregular or wholly unreasonable, and eviction on nuisance or waste requires proof of actionable nuisance or material impairment of the building's value or utility.

---