This revision petition has been filed under Sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur, dated 20.2.65 rejecting the appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarh dated 13.10.1964, whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarh, had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the non-petitioner in a suit under Sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to make out that the suit under Sec. 188 brought by Ladu, non-petitioner, was not maintainable as such a suit could be brought only by a tenant. He also made a reference to the Pass Book granted by the Consolidation Deptt., according to which the disputed land is supposed to be in the occupation of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner relied upon the girdawaris for the period Smt. year 2011 to 2017 wherein Ladu, non-petitioner, has been entered as a tenant. He also referred to Sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and argued that under this Section, a suit was maintainable by a tenant against any other person. As regards the Pass Book, his contention was that it did not show that the petitioner was in possession of the land. It was merely an allotment order. He also urged that the land remained with the receiver until 2.7.64 under the orders of the Criminal Court, following proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the petitioner, could not bring forward the plea that he was in possession of the land just prior to the suit. It was also argued that the concurrent findings of the courts below should not be lightly interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this court, particularly when no illegality or material irregularity had been brought out on record. This contention must, prevail. In revisional jurisdiction, this Board has no power to interfere except where it appears that the court below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It does not fall within the purview of this court to enter into the merits of the evidence in proceedings under Sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It does not fall within the purview of this court to enter into the merits of the evidence in proceedings under Sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It has only to see whether the requirements of the law have been duly and properly obeyed by the court or not, so far as it relates to the jurisdiction or the legal procedure laid down for the disposal of the matter in dispute. If it is found that the external conditions of jurisdiction have been satisfied, the revisional court is not expected to substitute its own appreciation of evidence in a matter which lies within the discretion of the inferior court. In this view of the law, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hereby reject this revision petition.