Judgment

GOSWAMI, J.:- The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to the scope of Section 26 (c) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1964 (No. XX of 1954) {briefly the Act.) The facts may briefly be stated:

The landlords (respondents herein) made an application to the Rent Controller for an order of eviction of the tenants (appellants herein) on two grounds, namely, default in payment of rent and secondly requirement of the premises for their personal occupation to open a hardware stop at Latur where the premises are situated. It is admitted that the landlords have a hardware shop at Udgir where they have their own residence as well. The Rent Controller as well as the Assistant Judge, who heard the appeal found that the tenants were not in default in payment of rest. Both the courts also concurrently held that the landlords failed to establish the bona fide requirement for their own use and occupation. Being aggrieved by the decision of the courts below, the landlords preferred a Revision Application under Section 26 of the Act to the High Court of Bombay. The High Court examined the reasons given by the Rent Controller as well those of the Assistant Judge and came to the conclusion that both the courts below have acted illegally inasmuch as "there was no cogent reason to reject the testimony of the 1st petitioner in this respect. In its view, "therefore, it has been sufficiently proved by the landlord that they really want to start hardware business at Latur as well". The High Court therefore, ordered the appellants to deliver possession of the suit premises to the respondents. Hence this appeal by special leave.

2. Section 25 provides for filing of appeals and runs as follows.-

"25. Appeal - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an appeal from an order made by the Controller shall lie within 30 days from the date of such order to the District Judge..........

(2) x x x x x

(3) The appellate authority shall send for the records of the case from the Controller and after going the parties an opportunity of being heard, and if necessary after making such further inquiry as it thinks fit either personally or through the Controller, shall decide the appeal.

(4) Save as provided in Section 26 the decision of the appellate authority and subject to on i such decision, an order of the Controller shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of Law whether in a suit or other proceedings or by way of appeal.

3. Section 26 which provides for revision reads as under: -

"26. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, an application for revision shall lie to the High Court from any final order passed on appeal by an appellate authority on the following grounds: -

(a) that the original or appellate authority exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) that the original or appellate authority failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) in following the proceduce or passing the order the original or appellate authority acted illegally or withmaterial irregularity."

4. Mr. Phadke, learned counsel for the appellants, made only one submission before us. He submitted that the High Court was clearly wrong in re-appreciating the evidence to come to a contrary conclusion by interfering in revision under Section 26 (c) of the Act with the concurrent findings of fact with regard to bona fide requirement of the landlords. He further submitted that the scope of Section 26 (c) of the Act is necessarily narrower than that of an appeal and is similar to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court, therefore, erred in jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below and in passing the decree for eviction.

5. There is a three-tier machinery provided in the Act for dealing with a landlord s application for eviction. The first court