R. L. Khurana, J.—The petitioner before this court is the tenant while the respondent is the landlord of the tenanted premises comprising of Western Set in the lower flat of the building known as "Sharan Ashram" Lower Kaithu Shimla. The parties are being hereinafter referred to accordingly as tenant and landlord

2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under section 14 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act from the tenanted premises on the following grounds :— (a) that the tenanted premises are required bonafide by the landlord for his own use and occupation ; and (b) that the tenant has been misusing the tenanted premises and is guilty of such acts as to diminish the value and utility of the tenanted premises.

3. The petition for eviction of the tenant was allowed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla vide order dated 16-6-1977. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenanted premises were bonafide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. The other ground of ejectment did not find favour with the Rent Controller. The tenant was accordingly directed to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises within 60 days of the order.

4. On an appeal having been carried before the learned Appellate Authority (Sessions Judge Forests), Shimla, by the tenant, the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed vide order dated 8-3-1995. Consequently, the appeal of the tenant was dismissed.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has come up before this Court by way of the present petition under section 24 (5), H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act, assailing the concurrent findings of the two courts below holding that the tenanted premises are bonafide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation.

6. At the very outset it has been contended on behalf of the landlord that this court may not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below in exercise of its re visional jurisdiction which is not wide enough to enable this court to examine the same as an appeal. It has further been contended that reappraisal of evidence was not permissible nor concurrent findings of fact could be set aside by this court in its revisional jurisdiction. Section 24 (5) of the Rent Act, reads :— “(5). The High Court may at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit."

7. In Dev Kumar v. Smt. Swaran Lata, 1996 (1) RCR 40, the apex Court had the occasion to deal with the scope of revision power of the High Court under section 15 (5), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which provision is similar to the provision contained in section 24 (5) of the Rent Act (quoted above) It was held :- “..........The jurisdiction of the High Court under sub-section (5) of section 15 of the Act, therefore, would entitle the Court to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority and is thus much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to the well known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an Appellate jurisdiction. This being the position, unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come, the High Court will not interfere with the same.”

8. Keeping the above limitations in mind, this court has proceeded to examine the evidence in order to satisfy itself if the findings of the two courts below suffer from any illegality or impropri