The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring lower courts adhered to legal standards, without reassessing evidence as in an appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Present Revision Petition has been preferred, invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short ‘Rent Act’) against judgment dated 28.11.2005, passed by Appellate Authority, Fast Track, Shimla, in Rent Appeal No. 15-S/14 of 2004/2000, titled as Prabha Bhagra and others Vs. Jawala Devi and others, whereby order dated 26.11.1999, passed in Case No. 93/2 of 95/92, titled as Smt. Prabha Bhagra and others Vs. Smt. Jawala Devi and others, by Rent Controller-II, Shimla, has been reversed and tenant(s) have been declared in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.40,558/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and cost of petition and tenant(s) have also been directed to vacate the premises on the ground of impairing value and utility of demised premises by raising unauthorized construction.

2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein had filed petition for eviction as landlords, whereas petitioner No. 1 Jawala Devi (deleted before Appellate Authority being expired) was impleaded as tenant being successor of original tenant (respondent No. 1) Dalip Chand, whereas petitioners No. 2 to 9 were arrayed as respondents No. 3 and 5 to 11 being children of deceased Dalip Chand alongwith other two sons of Dalip Chand namely Amrit Lal Goel and Bhagwan Dass Goel, who were originally arrayed as respondents No. 2 and 4, but on account of death of Amrit Lal Goel, he was substituted by his legal heirs as respondents No. 2(a) to 2(e) in the Eviction Petition and they have been arrayed as proforma respondents No. 5 to 8 in present petition, whereas Bhagwan Dass Goel, who was original respondent No. 4 was deleted before the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.4.2003. Rajesh Kumar Bhagra being co-owner with the petitioners/landlords was arrayed as proforma respondent No. 12 in the eviction petition and he is proforma respondent No. 9 in present petition.

3. For convenience, respondents No. 1 to 3 shall be referred as petitioners/landlords, whereas Rajesh Kumar Bhagra shall be referred as co-landlord and Jawala Devi shall be referred as tenant and others shall be referred as respondents.

4. Petitioners/landlords preferred an Eviction Petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, for eviction of tenant from half portion of garage situated near Victory Tunnel, by stating that respondent No. 1 Jawala Devi was tenant, with assertion that premises were originally let out to Dalip Chand husband of tenant/respondent Jawala Devi and after his death Jawala Devi became tenant. It was alleged that Jawala Devi in connivance with respondents No. 2 to 12 had made substantial additions, alterations including structural change in the premises and had impaired the value and utility of the premises. Three grounds for preferring eviction petition were taken. First ground was that tenant/respondent No. 1 had failed to make payment of arrears of rent alongwith interest from 1.4.1990 to 30.11.1991, amounting to Rs.4,655/-. Second ground was that Jawala Devi in connivance with respondents No. 2 to 12 had made substantial additions and alterations including structural change in the premises in question without written consent of the petitioners/landlords or that of proforma respondent-co-landlord and this act had materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. Third ground was that tenanted premises was rented out to original tenant for running Chakki in the same, but after removing the said Chakki, tenant/respondent No. 1 Jawala Devi changed the nature of the business, resulting into change of user without consent of landlords.

5. It is case of the landlords that in the tenanted premises, husband of tenant Jawala Devi who was father of respondents No. 2 to 11, namely Dalip Chand was inducted as tenant in the half portion of the garage alongwith Chakki installed therein in which premises, flour mill was being run. Tenant, firstly damaged the back portion of rented