Civil Review 47 of 2008. 18.8.2008 Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the respondent. This petition has been instituted by the petitioner, who is the tenant in the premises from where his eviction was ordered by judgment dated 6.5.2008. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the findings regarding the existence of another building available for occupation of the respondent-landlord are not correct and that there is no evidence on record to show that the basement is damp. He submits that the evidence does not support these two conclusions arrived at by the Court. Another contention urged by the learned counsel is that the case law on the basis of which the petition has been decided, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that all grounds urged by the petitioner herein cannot be gone into in review. He submits that the provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the rent proceedings. Without entering into controversy as to whether Order 47 applies or not, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail. The facts urged regarding the conclusions -2- arrived at on the basis of evidence cannot be reappreciated after the judgment has been pronounced. The matter was heard at length. If the findings are incorrect, or if other conclusion is possible or if the case law does not support the rationale of the judgment, these cannot constitute grounds for review of judgment. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. August 18, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.