R.L. Khurana, J.—The petitioner before this Court is the tenant. Aggrieved by the order of ejectment passed against him by the two forums below, he has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Act).

2. The tenanted premises comprise of a shop located in House No. 288 in Ward No. 4 of the Municipal Area of Palampur. The respondent landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant under Section 14(2)(v) of the Act on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of twelve months. According to the landlord, the tenant on having joined Government service has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises and that such premises are lying vacant since 12.12.1991.

3. The tenant while resisting the petition admitted that he had joined Government service. He, however, denied that he has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises. It was pleaded that the business under the name and stye of Messrs. Sharma Medical Store was being initially run by him and his mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi and that on his joining Government service, the business in the tenanted premises continues to be run by his mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi and his sons. Objections as to petition being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, absence of cause of action and the petition being barred under principle of res judicata as also under Order 2 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, were further raised.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller (II), Palampur:—

1. Whether the respondent has joined the Government service and has ceased to occupy the suit premises for a period of one year continuously, as alleged? OPA

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of eviction as claimed? OPA

3. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct to file the petition, as alleged? OPR

4. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action, as alleged? OPR

5. Whether the petition is barred by principle of res judicata and also under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, as alleged? OPR

6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR

7. Relief.

5. The learned Rent Controller found issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the landlord and issues No. 3 to 6 against the tenant. Consequent upon such findings, an order of ejectment came to be passed against the tenant.

6. The appeal preferred by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, Kangra at Dharamshala was dismissed on 21.12.2000. The Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the Rent Controller on all the issues and affirmed the ejectment order. Hence the present revision petition at the instance of the tenant.

7. At the very outset, it was contended on behalf of the landlord that revisional powers of this Court are limited and in exercise of revisional powers, this court cannot reappreciate the evidence in order to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two forums below on a question of fact. In support reliance was placed on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Gyan Prakash v. Som Nath and others, 1996 (1) RCR 342, wherein it was held that on questions of fact, the findings recorded by the authorities below must be accepted and the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with such findings in exercise of limited scope and ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Rent Act. The High Court is not exercising the powers of a Court of appeal and as such, is not expected to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and to come to a contrary finding.

8. Section 24(5) of the Act provides that 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 the Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or