O R D E R Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2026 Soumen Sen, C. J.

We have heard Mr. G. Sreekumar (Chelur), learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner assails the judgment of the appellate authority affirming the order of the rent control court in proceedings initiated for eviction of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement.

3. We have carefully perused the order of the rent control court as well as the judgment of the appellate authority. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the respondent has a bona fide need for the premises in question, consequent upon the injury suffered by him while working in the Merchant Navy, and that he intends to settle at Kodungallur, where the subject property is situated.

4. The law is well settled that unless the concurrent findings of fact are shown to be perverse, the revisional court shall not interfere with such findings. Mere possibility of the revisional court taking a different view on the facts and circumstances of the case would not justify interference with the concurrent findings, once such findings are found to be a possible view based on the evidence on record.

5. Learned couns