Judgment

VENKATACHALIAH, J. :- This appeal, by Special Leave, by the tenant arises out of the proceedings for eviction instituted against him under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act 1949 and is preferred against the judgment, dated, 29-5-1984 in Civil Revn. No. 1934 of 1982* of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reversing the judgment, dated, 30-4-1982 made by the Appellate Authority, Kapurthala, in Rent Appeal No. 130 and restoring that of the Rent Controller, dated, 17-12-1978 in rent case No. 47 of 1977, granting possession to the Respondent-landlords.

* Reported in (1984) 2 Rent. LR 96 (Punj & Har)

2. Appellant was a tenant of the premises concerned in the proceedings on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 having been inducted into possession on 9-12-1965 by the then owner Smt. Manohar Kaur. The premises in the occupation of the appellant consist of a portion of the groundfloor of the building. On 15-2-1976, the said Manohar Kaur sold the entire property in favour of respondents. The respondents are four brothers. Prior to the purchase, they were occupying, as tenants, other portions of the same building both in the first floor and the second floor. They were in occupation of three rooms in the first floor and one in the second.

On 27-9-1977, respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of their own bona fide requirement of the premises. They alleged that the portion in their occupation was insufficient for their needs and that they required additional accommodation. They said that they were in all 10 brothers who, along with their families, were living together with their father.

3. Appellant contested the claim, urging that respondent 1, one of the brothers,. was in occupation of other rented premises in the same town at a place called Mohalla Malkana; that the respondents father was himself in occupation of a separate rented premises; that the accommodation already available to the respondents was more than sufficient for their requirements and that, accordingly, their projected need was fictitious and mala fide. Appellant also said that the proceedings were brought in collusion with the previous owner.

4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Rent Controller upheld the claim of the landlords and made an order granting possession. The Appellate Authority (District Judge), however, allowed appellants appeal and set aside the order of eviction. The High Court in revision under S. 15(5) of the Act reversed the appellate judgment and restored that of the court of first instance. The aggrieved tenant has come up by special leave.

5. In support of the appeal, Shr Harbans Lal, learned senior advocate, urged that the order of the High Court suffers from and stands vitiated, by two serious errors: The first, according to the learned counsel, is that the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, was precluded from reopening findings of facts recorded by the Appellate Authority and substituting fresh findings of its own on a reappraisal of the evidence even if the fresh findings so recorded could be said to be amongst those possible on the evidence. Learned counsel placed reliance on Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, (1975) 1 SCR 127 and Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel, (1974) 3 SCR 267.

The second is that the findings as to the bona fides, or the lack of it, of the alleged need for the additional accommodation recorded by the Appellate Authority were sound, proper and supportable on the evidence on record and the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could not have re-appraised the evidence afresh and that the findings so substituted by the High Court are wholly erroneous.

Sh. V. C. Mahajan, learned senior advocate for the respondent- landlords, however, sought. to support the order of the High Court.

6. Upon a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that both the contentions urged in support of the appeal are unsubstantial.

It is, no doubt, true that the question whether the req