This was a pure question of fact the concurrent finding on which was not amendable to interference in execise of revisional powers under the 'Act '; PG NO 322 (b) That reliance by the High Court on the evidence of R.W. 3 and Plans Exhibit R. 4 to show that the structural modifications indicated an accessibility between the main premises and the portions in the occupation of sub tenants was wholly misplaced as, indeed, Exhibit R. 4 was itself produced in a totally different context and for altogether different purpose, viz., to meet the ground of eviction based on unauthorised construction and not for purposes of rebutting exclusive possession of the sub tenants; (c) That even if the Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court admitted a re appreciation of evidence, a finding of a fact which was the result purely of appreciation of oral evidence by the trial court could not be interfered with even by an Appellate Court and a fortiorari in Revision; (d) That the view of the High Court as to the alleged infirmity of the Court Commissioner 's (A.W. 1) report on the ground that his appointment was not preceded by a notice to the Respondent was erroneous.