(Kuldip Chand Sood, J.): Petitioner Shri Jagbir Singh,(hereinafter referred to as "the Landlord") consisting of one room, one glazed verandah, a kitchen, store, a bath-room, and a Latrine, situate in the ground floor of Shanti Niwas near Manohar Bhawan, Ahuja Colony, Sanjauli, Shirnla-6. Shri Roshan Lal Mamta is the tenant (hereinafter to be referred to as "the tenant") of these premises (premises for short) at a monthly rental of Rs.300/- per month. The premises were originally owned by one Smt. Shanti Devi. The premises were purchased by the landlord on February 1, 1993 by a registered sale deed Ext. PA.

2. The landlord filed a petition under Section 14(2) (i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Rent Apt for short) for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent due from the tenant with effect from February 1, 1993 to August 31, 1994 along with taxes at the rate of 8% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The case of the landlord is that the tenant is in arrears of rent from the date of the purchase of the premises by him, i.e., February 1, 1993 and the rent has not been paid by the tenant in spite of the requests made by him. It is the further case of the landlord that the tenant is colliding with the previous owner and has manufactured certain "so-called receipts of the rent" in order to harass the landlord and defeat his claim for the arrears of rent.

3. The tenant resists the petition. The tenant, in his reply, denies relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He denies the purchase of the premises by landlord from Smt. Shanti Devi, the previous owner. It is also denied that the landlord over requested the respondent for the payment of rent. It is, however, admitted that the tenant is occupying the premises on lease at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- per month. Liability to pay municipal taxes is denied.

4. It is the case of the tenant that he has already paid rent to Smt. Shanti Devi upto January, 1995 and he, therefore is not liable to pay rent till January, 1995.

5. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated October 23, 1997 found that the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. February 1, 1993. It was also held by the learned Rent Controller that the tenant is liable to pay municipal taxes at the rate of 8% of the monthly rent along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the arrears of rent. The plea of the tenant there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is rejected. The learned Rent Controller accordingly directed the eviction of the tenant if the tenant fails to pay the arrears of rent together with municipal taxes and interest, as determined by the learned Rent Controller, within one month from the date of the order.

6. Feeling dis-satisfied with the orders of the Rent Controller, the landlord filed on appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated March 2, 1999, replying upon agreement (Ext.PX) held that the tenant was to pay the rent to Smt. Shanti Devi even after the transfer of the premises by her to the landlord and, therefore, has validly paid the rent to Smt. Shanti Devi upto December, 1994.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord has filed the present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act.

8. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner and Mr. Naresh Sood, learned counsel for the tenant- respondent.

9. Mr. Naresh Sood, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited only to the legality of the impugned order and this court should refrain from re-appraising the evidence.

10. Sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the Rent Act clothes the High Court with the revisional jurisdiction, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings. Sub- section (5) to Section 24 may be reproduced as under: "The High Court may, at any time, on the