Case: Gandhe Vijay Kumar Vs. Mulji @ Mulchand

The appellant before this Court is aggrieved by order passed by the High Court wherein concurrent findings on facts with regard to the bonafide requirements of the appellant have been upset holding that "the court canthe evidence to test whether the findings of the Rent Controller are correct". We are afraid, the High Court has misdirected itself and exceeded its jurisdiction. In revisional jurisdiction, the Court is expected to see only whether the findings are illegal or perverse in the sense that a reasonably informed person will not enter such a finding.

Court's reasoning:
These principles hold good generally for exercise of revisional power.2. There is no dispute with respect to therelationship. The bonafide requirement also has been concurrently found by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. The High Court should not have ventured to look into the evidence as if in a first appeal and entered a different finding, though another finding might also be possible. Merely because another view is possible in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot upset the factual findings.