This Civil Revision Application arises out of the suit for possession between a landlord and a tenant. The plaintiff-landlord filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Baroda Regular Civil Suit No.490 of 1963 for recovering possession of the suit premises from the defendants on three grounds. His first ground was that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation. His second ground was that the defendants had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises and his third ground was that the defendants had caused damage to the suit property. The learned Trial Judge negatived the plaintiff's contentions relating to unlawful sub-letting and damage to the suit property but upheld the contention that he required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation. In that view of the matter he passed against the defendants decree for possession.

2. The defendants appealed to the District Court. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, on consideration of evidence before him, upheld the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal occupation. In that view of the matter he confirmed the decree for possession passed by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the appeal.

3-6. Mr. Patel has, however, pressed before me Civil Application No.1567 of 1971 which the defendants have made for leading additional evidence. He wants to lead additional evidence of three new and subsequent events. The first event, alleged by the defendants, is that the plaintiff since the passing of the appellate decree has expired. The second alleged event is that Tulsidas, one of the plaintiff's sons, has got a bungalow in his possession in Nayana Society in the City of Baroda and it is sufficient for housing the plaintiff and his family. The third alleged event is that the plaintiff's another son-G.M. Kalwani-has got another similar bungalow in Nayana Society in the City of Baroda. According to him, if these events are allowed to be proved in this revision application by additional evidence, the plaintiff's case for reasonable and bona fide requirement of the suit premises for his personal occupation will be completely demolished. He has emphasized the fact that the plaintiff has not filed any affidavit in reply to this Civil Application. It is true that the plaintiff has not filed any affidavit in reply. I also do not find any affidavit in support of this application. For the reasons which follow, I am of the opinion that additional evidence of new and subsequent events cannot be allowed to be led in a revision application. This revision application has been filed under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act which confers jurisdiction upon this Court only to satisfy "itself that any such decision in appeal was according to law." The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 29 extends only to correction of errors of law or to removal of legal infirmities in the appellate decrees passed under the Bombay Rent Act. In my opinion, it means that this Court has to accept the facts of the case as they are and find out whether the decision contains any errors of law or legal infirmities which it can correct or remove. If the record does not disclose any such error or infirmity, it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the appellate decision. It cannot add new and subsequent events to the record and say that the appellate decision is not according to law. I, therefore, cannot examine the legality of the decree on facts which were not before the lower Appellate Court and which occurred subsequently.

7. Additional evidence of new and subsequent events also cannot be allowed to be led in a revisional application for very good and cogent reasons. New events which may be attempted to be brought on record will require investigation and proof. How will High Court investigate into them in a revisional application? One of the ways