( 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 i