Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against the District Court's order passed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. 2. The petitioner and her husband were formerly at Ernakulam. They shifted residence to Trivandrum. The building at Ernakulam was let out to tenants, the ground floor to one Madhavan Nair, and the first floor to the respondent. The respondent started occupation in 1970, and the rent was initially Rs. 300/-per mensem. The petitioner's husband passed away in 1975, but she continued to reside at Trivandrum where they had put up a modern residential building. After the death of the husband, the petitioner was requesting the respondent to pay rent at an enhanced rate. After protracted correspondence, the respondent agreed to pay at the rate of Rs. 350/- a month, from August, 1976; but the petitioner was not happy with this offer. The petition for eviction was filed in 1979 on the ground that the first floor was required bona fide for the petitioner's own occupation It was said that the petitioner's aged mother who had been living with her at Trivandrum, was anxious to return to her native place at Irinjalakuda. From Ernakulam, the, petitioner could make frequent and easy visits to Irinjalakuda, and that would not be possible, if she continued to remain at a distant place like Trivandrum. Other grounds were also there, but they are not relevant for the present. 3. The Rent Control Court was of the view that the petitioner was seeking eviction mainly because she was dissatisfied with the tenant's response to the demand for higher rent; it held that the claim for own occupation was not bona fide. The appellate authority thought that the claim could not be rejected as without bona fides for, the only reason that there was an earlier demand for higher rent. The learned District Judge before whom the matter then came up under S.20 declined to adopt such abstract or doctrinaire approaches: he went into the evidence in detail, examined the facts in full, and came to the conclusion that the bona fides of the petitioner's claim was in doubt. The eviction petition was accordingly dismissed, in reversal of the appellate authority's decision. 4. The eviction petition was accordingly dismissed, in reversal of the appellate authority's decision. 4. Before me, the main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that in exercise of power under S.20, the District Court could not have re-appraised the evidence and differed from the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority. This again seems to be an abstract or theoretical approach. S.20 of Act 2/65 empowers the District Court to examine not only the legality, but also the propriety of the order passed by the appellate authority; and for considering whether the decision under challenge is proper or not, the District Court must, in appropriate cases, be able to survey the entire material on record. It is true that such survey cannot be in the nature of a de novo appraisal as in the case of an appeal; all the same, an examination of all the facts and circumstances of a case may sometimes become necessary. The case on hand itself furnishes an example as to how and under what circumstances such an approach may become necessary. According to the District Court, the following circumstances were highly relevant in deciding the question of the petitioner's bona fides: (i) During the period from 1976 to 1979 the petitioner had been asking for higher rates of rent, and she was not satisfied with the enhancement of Rs. 50/- given from August, 1976. (ii) The mother had been expressing her desire to return to Irinjalakuda from 1978, but even thereafter, the petitioner had been asking for increase in rent, indicating thereby that the idea of own occupation had not sprung entirely from the mother's desire to go back; (iii) Even in January, 1979 the petitioner's case (as evidenced by Ext. B5) was that the flat belonged to one of her children who might require it for his/her occupation. though as matters stood then, the petitioner would be satisfied with an enhancement of Rs.100/-per month in the rent; and (iv) The petitioner was maintaining a car throughout, and if she was really moving over to Ernakulam, the ground floor flat occupied by Madhavan Nair would have been more suitable since it had a car-shed attached to it. though as matters stood then, the petitioner would be satisfied with an enhancement of Rs.100/-per month in the rent; and (iv) The petitioner was maintaining a car throughout, and if she was really moving over to Ernakulam, the ground floor flat occupied by Madhavan Nair would have been more suitable since it had a car-shed attached to it. If the appellate authority had failed to draw the necessary inferences from the above circumstances admitted or established before it, and merely gone by the general proposition that a demand for enhanced rent could not as a rule affect the landlord's bona fides in all cases, it seems to me that its conclusion required review even under the limited jurisdiction under S.20, as attempted by the District Court. 5. There are thus no grounds for interference under S.115 C. P. C. 6. Rent Control cases like the present where landlords seek eviction on grounds more imaginary than genuine, have been flooding our courts for some time past. One way of looking at the problem is to think that owners of buildings are avaricious and are out to evict every tenant declining to pay exorbitant rates of rent when demanded. Another way is to take the world as it is, and realise that every man is selfish, whether landlord or tenant: if the price of all other supplies and services could go up from time to time, why should the price of accommodation alone remain stagnant for decades together? These are of course questions to be decided by the policy-makers and not the courts; but a rigid adherence to the present policy coupled with a steady erosion in the value of the rupee is bound to result in more and more eviction petitions founded on flimsy grounds. Whether the situation will operate as a disincentive to investment in housing accommodation is also a matter which may require examination. Revision dismissed.