https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178460 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. en-us Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178460 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178460