Summary
The High Court exceeded revisional jurisdiction by reassessing evidence and displacing concurrent findings of the landlord’s bona fide requirement merely because another view was possible. The eviction order was restored, with time granted to the tenant to vacate on specified conditions.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could replace concurrent factual findings through appellate-style reappreciation in revision.
Held
- Revision is not a disguised first appeal. Evidence may be examined to identify illegality, perversity, ignored material, no evidence or comparable serious error, but not simply to reach a different factual view. (¶ 1)
- The landlord-tenant relationship was undisputed and bona fide need concurrently established. No lawful revisional basis justified replacing those findings merely because an alternative assessment was possible. (¶ 2–3)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Rent Controller’s order, upheld on appeal, restored. Tenant allowed to remain through 31 March 2018 and directed to surrender by 1 April 2018, refrain from third-party rights or damage and file an undertaking within four weeks.