The landlord has the freedom to determine his bonafide requirement for the premises, and the revisional authority cannot reappreciate evidence but can only correct findings that are not according to law.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The tenant is the petitioner, who aggrieved by the order of eviction as passed by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, has filed the instant petition.

The parties shall be referred to as the "landlord" and "tenant".

2. The premises in question comprises of two rooms set and one shop in a building known as Hussain Niwas, near Didigar, Meat Market, Ward No.4, Rohru. The eviction thereof was sought by the landlord on the grounds of bonafide requirement and arrears of rent.

3. The tenant contested the petition by raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, grounds taken in the eviction petition being not available to the landlord and the rent having already been paid to the landlord. In reply, on merits, the preliminary objections so raised were elaborated.

4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller on 28.12.2013 framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted on the ground of bona fide by the petitioner, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR.

4. Relief.

5. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the petition for eviction was allowed on both the grounds by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 9.12.2016.

6. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant, in appeal, assailed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller before the learned Appellate Authority, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 14.12.2018, constraining the tenant to file the instant revision petition.

7. It is vehemently argued by Mr. V. S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Dharel, Advocate, appearing for the tenant, that both the authorities below have erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the landlord is owning other shops in the premises in question, and, therefore, his requirement cannot be termed to be bonafide. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajit Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, appearing for the landlord, would vehemently argue that the instant petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court as the tenant being in occupation of the premises is only trying to delay the proceedings, therefore, this petition should be dismissed with heavy costs.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

9. At the outset, the scope of revisional jurisdiction which Court can exercise must borne in mind, as the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 laid down certain broad principles for exercise of revisional jurisdiction which can be summarized as under:

(i) The term 'propriety' would imply something which is legal and proper.

(ii) The power of the High Court even though wider than the one provided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not wide enough to that of the appellate Authority.

(iii) Such power cannot be exercised as the cloak of an appeal in disguise.

(iv) Issues raised in the original proceedings cannot be permitted to be reheard as a appellate Authority.

(v) The expression "revision" is meant to convey the idea of much narrower expression than the one expressed by the expression "appeal". The revisional power under the Rent Control Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power under Section 115 of the CPC but certainly it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal. While holding so the Court reiterated the view taken in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagawal, (1975) 2 SCC 246.

(vi). The meaning of the expression "legality and propriety" so explained in Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander, (1988) 3 SCC 131 was only to the extent that exercise