The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality and propriety of orders passed by lower courts and cannot be equated with a full-fledged appeal. Concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts should not be disturbed unless they are perverse, erroneous, or based on misreading of evidence.

1. Umrao petitioner has filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Narnaul, dated 11-11-1992 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul, dated 2-5-1998. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority.

2. The relevant facts are that petitioner is a tenant in the shop in question. The respondents who are landlords filed an eviction petition. The ground of eviction relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition and that found favour with the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority is that, as per landlords, the petitioner who is a tenant has sublet the property to Raghbir respondent (now dead and represented by respondents No. 3 to 5 in the revision petition). Raghbir was the son of the petitioner. The eviction petition was contested. It was denied that the property in question has been sublet or that the possession has been delivered to Raghbir, his son. Petitioners claim was that his son was not carrying on any business of cycle repairing in the suit premises.

3. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and with respect to the said controversy concluded that it was the son of the petitioner who was carrying on the business in the property in question. The report of the Local Commissioner was relied upon that it was the son of the petitioner who was found working in the suit premises. The learned Rent Controller held that when a third person is in possession and both the petitioner and his son were having separate mess, it is a case of subletting. An order of eviction was passed.

4. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bharat Sales Limited V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998 Haryana Rent Reporter, 150 (AIR 1998 SC 1240) and held further that it was the son of the petitioner who was carrying on the business in the suit property. The petitioner lived separately from his son. Acting on the report of the Local Commissioner, it was concluded that the findings of the Rent Controller are correct.

5. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset urged that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were in error in relying upon the report of the Local Commissioner because, according to him, the Local Commissioner had not appeared as a witness. The petitioner in this process lost the right to cross-examine the Local Commissioner.

7. What is missing in the argument of the learned counsel is that, admittedly, to the report of the Local Commissioner, petitioner has filed objections. Objections had been considered and were dismissed. On the strength of this fact, learned counsel for the respondents contended that once objections have been dismissed, it becomes unnecessary to examine the Local Commissioner and the report could be read in evidence.

8. This Court in the case of Raja Ram V/s. Ram Sarup, 1979 Punjab Law Journal, 12, has dealt with this controversy. It was held that the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court can be read in evidence and if any party takes exception to it, he is at liberty to examine him as a witness. In the case of Inder Kumar Jain V/s. Durga Dass, 1981 (1) RCJ 450, a Local Commissioner was appointed ex parte. It was held that a Local Commissioner could be appointed and his report could be considered because it was noted that otherwise it would cause serious prejudice to the landlord. Same view prevailed with this Court in the case of Hukam Chand V/s. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh, 1983 (1) All India Rent Control Journal, 193. It becomes unnecessary for this Court to probe further in this regard because, as mentioned above, the petitioner had filed objections to the report of the Local Commissi