Interference by High Court warranted with the findings of fact recorded by Lower Appellate Court.

This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment in C.M.A. No.3 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur.

.2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition may

be summarised as follows:

Plaintiff is the owner of the entire plaint schedule property. Apart from the subject matter of the suit, some more area was in the possession of the defendant, on the basis of a lease of the vacant site. Petitioner purchased the entire property and filed a suit O.S.No.459 of 1973, for eviction of the respondent. A compromise was entered in that case whereunder a portion was surrendered to the plaintiff wherein he has now put up a construction and is residing therein.

3. In so far as the plaint schedule property is concerned, defendant claimed the benefit of Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. It is his case that on the basis of the lease of the vacant site, taken for commercial purpose, he has put up superstructures therein and entitled to purchase the area from the landlord. He, therefore, filed OJRNo.40 of 1975. The trial Court as well as lower appellat Court dismissed his application and declared that the respondent is not entitled to the benefits of the Act. Later, in the revision filed as C.R.P.No.1870 of 1982, this Court declared that the respondent is entitled to the benefits of Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and remitted the matter to consider the minimum area required for the defendant to continue his business and also directed the Court to assess the area that will be necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the defendant. Subsequent to the remand by this Court, defendant field an application as I.A.No.102 of 1983, under 0.26, Rule 9 read with Sec.151, C.P.C. to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose mentioned in the Order of remand. A counter was also filed by the plaintiff who was the respondent in the said I.A.

4. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner who visited the property and submitted Reports and Plans. Thereafter, the parties were also examined, and finally, the trial Court, by Order dated 24. 1991, decided the minimum area necessary for the defendant to conduct his business. It held that a total plinth area of 2999 sq. ft. will be sufficient for the said purpose. The Commissioner, in his report, only found that an area of 3500 sq. ft. is sufficient for the business. Defendant preferred C.M.A. No.3 of 1992, on the file of the lower appellate Court. By the impugned judgment, the lower appellate Court found that the Order of the trial Court is not correct and found that an area of 6702 sq. ft. of land is necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the defendant, for doing his business, and the respondent (defendant) was permitted to purchase the same. It is that Order that is under challenge in this revision.

.5. Learned counsel, for the respondent at the time when the revision was taken up for arguments, submitted that the revision being one under Sec.115, C.P.C, unless it is shown that the Order of the lower Appellate Court is illegal, irregular or improper, this Court should not interfere. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that when the lower appellate Court has entered a finding as to the minimum area necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the defendant, that is based on evidence, and it is only an appreciation of facts. This, according to learned counsel, will not enable this Court to interfere in revision under Sec.115, C.P.C. The argument is that unless this Court finds that the lower appellate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, this Court may not interfere with the Order of the Court below. It was further argued that unless the petitioner shows that the Order has caused irreparable loss or injury, the Order should be allowed to stand.