IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 27 of 2009. Judgment Reserved on May 22, 2009. Date of decision May 28, 2009. Shri Rajinder Singh ….Petitioner. Versus Sh. Kuldeep Singh ….Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This revision petition has been instituted by the plaintiff against the orders passed by the two Courts below refusing permission in the interim application instituted by the plaintiff praying for repairing of the suit premises in which the plaintiff- petitioner is the lessee. On the allegations made by the plaintiff, the Courts hold 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - that no permission can be granted despite the fact that he is a tenant of the premises. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Courts below also noticed that other four shops adjoining/ adjacent to the shop of the plaintiff have been vacated. The learned Courts also relied upon photographs filed on record to hold that the other shops have been pulled down. The trial Court also holds that the condition of the shop is such that repair is not possible. These findings have been affirmed by the appellate Court though in a cursory manner. Both the Courts having concurrently found in favour of the respondent, it is not open to me in revisional proceedings to re-appreciate questions of fact. (See Chandmal v. Firm Ram Chandra and Vishwanath, (1991) 3 SCC 130, Patel Valmik Himatlal and others v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai (1998) 7 SCC 383, Narayanaru Thrivikranaru v. V.Madhavan Potty and others, (2000) 2 SCC 422, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, (2000) 2 SCC 572 and Kaushalya Devi Vohra v. Mohinder Lal Gupta, (2000) 9 SCC 417). At the same time, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that whenever there are concurrent findings of fact, the High - 3 - Court has no jurisdiction to interfere if such findings are based on misreading of evidence and law. (See Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and others, (1999) 1 SCC 141) or where such findings are perverse (See C.Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan (Dead) by LRs. and others, (2000) 1 SCC 451 and Molar Mal (Dead) through LRs v. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd., (2000) 4 SCC 285). However, there is another caution in exercising revisional jurisdiction and that is that merely because another view is possible on the material on record, the revisional Court cannot make an independent re assessment of evidence to supplant its own view unless a case of perversity is made out. (See Smt. Rajbir Kaur and another v. M/S S.Chokesiri and Co. (1989) 1 SCC 19 and M/S Bhojraj Kunwarji Oil Mill and Ginning Factory and another v. Yograjsinha Shankarsinha Parihar and others, (1985) 1 SCC 149). I have not touched the point of maintainability of the revision after the amendment of the Code as even if the revision is not maintainable, this court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - 4 - Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 108 (f) of the Transfer of Property Act which reads: “(f) if the lessor neglects to make, within a reasonable time after notice, any repairs which he is bound to make to the property, the lessee may make the same himself, and deduct the expense of such repairs with interest from the rent, or otherwise recover it from the lessor;” He has cited case law in support of this contention and submits that the courts were duty bound to have considered the rights of the petitioner in accordance with this provision of law. He submits that the learned courts were not correct in assuming that once a notice terminating tenancy has been served, relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end per se. Without going into this aspect, it will be open to the petitioner herein to urge before the Courts below that such a right is available to the petitioner. If and when such an application is filed, the Court shall consider it in accordance with law. The dismissal of this application shall have no bearing on such / any other application - 5 - which may be filed. This petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications shall stand disposed of and interim orders vacated. May 28, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.