JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

A tenant claims his right of occupancy in a reconstructed building; he gets back his possession under a compromise decree. That decree contains a clause for rent. Despite that, he applies for standard-rent fixation. Soon, the landlord sues the tenant for possession on the grounds of rent default and illegal subletting. Both the courts below return concurrent findings against the tenant. Now, in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has this Court any scope to revise, what seem to be, findings of fact?

Facts:

2. Petitioner-Firm is the tenant, and the respondents are the co-owners. Before 1967, the firm was inducted as a tenant, and it continued to be so. In the course of time, as the building was dilapidated, it had to be demolished and reconstructed. When it was being reconstructed, the firm sued the landlords, seeking a declaration that it was a tenant and it should be reinducted as a tenant once the building was reconstructed. That RAD Suit No.225/1764 of 1967 ended in a compromise in 1969. Based on the consent terms, the trial Court decreed the firm's suit. One of the consent terms concerns the rent; both t