https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186250 In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence cannot be reappreciated merely to replace one view with another on bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had rejected eviction after considering the landlord's existing accommodation and residence, and those findings were not shown to be perverse or arbitrary. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in upsetting those concurrent findings or ordering eviction on a fresh assessment of evidence. The eviction petition therefore remained rejected. en-us Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:27:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186250 In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence cannot be reappreciated merely to replace one view with another on bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had rejected eviction after considering the landlord's existing accommodation and residence, and those findings were not shown to be perverse or arbitrary. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in upsetting those concurrent findings or ordering eviction on a fresh assessment of evidence. The eviction petition therefore remained rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186250