( 1 ) THE tenant filed in the Civil Court at Rajkot Misc. Application No. 356 of 1969 for fixing standard rent of the premises in his possession. The premises are situate in the city of Rajkot and consist of 2 rooms and a kitchen. The contractual rent of the premises is Rs. 125. 00 per month. The landlord denied the tenants case that the contractual rent was excessive.

( 2 ) THE learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence dismissed the tenants application on merits.

( 3 ) THE tenant applied to the District Court at Rajkot for the revision of that order under sec. 29 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned District Judge allowed the revision application and fixed the standard rent of the premises in question at Rs. 75. 00 per month.

( 4 ) IT is that revisional order which is challenged by the landlord in this revision application filed under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) MR. Zaveri appearing for the landlord has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the learned District Judge did not have the jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and to record a different conclusion on facts. The second contention which he has raised is that this is a case where there is no evidence whatsoever on the basis of which the standard rent of the premises in question can be fixed.

( 6 ) IN support of his first contention Mr. Zaveri has relied upon sub- sec. (3) of sec. 29 of the Bombay Rent Act which provides as under :- Where no appeal lies under this section from a decree or order in any suit or proceeding. . the District Court may for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree or order made was according to law call for the case in which such decree or order was made and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. The revisional jurisdiction which the District Court exercises under sub- sec. (3) of sec. 29 is limited to correction of errors of law. That is what in my opinion the expression according to law used in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 29 connotes. Reappreciation of evidence and recording a different conclusion on facts are not matters which fall within the realm of errors of law. In taking this view I am supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and others A. I. R. 1974 Supreme Court 1059

( 7 ) IN the instant case there was evidence of the tenant himself and the evidence of Dr. Doshi who is a tenant in one of the neighbouring properties. That was all the evidence which the tenant led. By leading the evidence of Dr. Doshi he tried to show that the rents for similar premises in the neighbourhood or in the locality were much lower. The learned trial Judge did not accept that evidence. The finding which he recorded was a pure finding of fact. Therefore there was no error of law which arose for the learned District Judge to correct and he exceeded his jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence of the tenant and Dr. Doshi and accepting it. The first contention raised by Mr. Zaveri is therefore well founded and must be accepted.

( 8 ) THE second contention which Mr. Zaveri has raised relates to the merits of the case and raises a question as to the method to be followed for fixing the standard rent of the premises. Sub-sec. (10) of sec. 5 Furnishes guidelines for the purpose. Clause (a) of sub-sec. (10) of sec. 5 provides that where the standard rent has been fixed by the Court and the Controller respectively under the Bombay Rent Restriction Act 1939 or the Bombay Rents Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947 it is the standard rent. There is no evidence in the instant case to show that any such standard rent was fixed either by the Court or by the Controller. Clause (b) of sub-sec. (10) of sec. 5 provides that where the standard rent has not been 50 fixed then subject to the provisions of sec. 11 the standard rent of the premises would be the rent at which the premises were let on the first day of Septemb