JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This revision arises out of a Suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief, Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The present opposite party No. 1 as Plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 89 of 1977 for recovery of the possession of the disputed house from the Defendants alleging that he was a tenant in respect of the house in question and was paying monthly rent of Rs. 25/- to the Defendants The Defendants did not thatch the house for the year 1977-78 nor did they effect necessary repairs for which the Plaintiff filed H.R.C. Case No. 2 of 1977 on 18-5-1977 u/s 10 of the O.H.R.C. Act. The notice of the said case was served on the Defendants on 1-6-1977. Having received the notice, the Defendants forcibly entered into a portion of the holding which fact was intimated to the House Rent Controller on 66-1977. The further allegation of the Plaintiff is that on 9-8-1977, the Defendants dispossessed the Plaintiff and occupied the entire house. Since the tenancy has not been terminated and he is entitled to occupy the premises from which he was forcibly dispossessed this suit has been filed for the aforesaid relief. 2. The Defendants, except Defendant No. 5, filed their written statement denying the plaint allegations and alleging that the Plaintiff voluntarily vacated the house on 3-5-1977 for the purpose of staying in his own house, the construction on which was complete by then and that the story of forcible dispossession is totally false. The learned Munsif after framing the necessary issues came to a conclusion after considering all the evidence laid before him that the Defendants have forcibly dispossessed the Plaintiff on 9-8-1977 and that he is entitled to be restored to the possession under See 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Since no appeal lies against the judgment passed in the suit u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the Defendants have filed this revision challenging the aforesaid judgment of the learned Munsif. 3. The Petitioners have challenged the correctness of the judgment mainly on the ground that the learned trial court has wrongly placed the onus on the Defendants and that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Court is perverse. 3. The Petitioners have challenged the correctness of the judgment mainly on the ground that the learned trial court has wrongly placed the onus on the Defendants and that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Court is perverse. The earned counsel appearing, for the Petitioners have placed the evidence of the witnesses who spoke for the Plaintiff and also the documentary evidence adduced on his behalf for the purpose of showing that the earned trial Court has reached a wrong conclusion and a proper analysis of the evidence, if made, would show that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove the forcible dispossession. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has also relied on the evidence led by his client in the trial court and contends that the evidence was sufficient for a finding that the Plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed. It is also his contention that the revisional court should not disturb the findings of the fact recorded by the trial Court on flimsy grounds as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 4. Section 6 of the Act itself provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under that Section The further provision in the said Section is that the aggrieved party can institute a suit on the basis of title to recover possession thereof. This case evidently comes u/s 115 of the CPC which empowers the High Court to correct, when necessary, certain classes of errors of jurisdiction committed by the subordinate courts. In order to interfere in the revision u/s 115 of the CPC the High Court must be satisfied that the subordinate Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In other words, there must be an error relating to the jurisdiction committed by lower Court either by way of assumption of jurisdiction which it does not have, or failure to exercise jurisdiction which it has, or by exercising its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity which alone would afford justification for interference by the High Court. In other words, there must be an error relating to the jurisdiction committed by lower Court either by way of assumption of jurisdiction which it does not have, or failure to exercise jurisdiction which it has, or by exercising its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity which alone would afford justification for interference by the High Court. A revisional Court cannot exercise its power to set aside even an illegal and wrong order nor it can reassess the evidence to have its own conclusion, In a decision reported in The Works Manager, Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi Vs. Vishwanath and Others. in AIR 1984 S.C. 1984 Bhairaj Sunwarli Oil Mill and Ginning Factory and Anr. v. Yograsinha Shankarsinha and Ors. their Lordships have firmly indicated that the revisional Court should not interfere in the orders passed by the subordinate Court even if a different view on facts is possible or can be elicited. A revision against a judgment passed u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act is further circumscribed by the limitation that it is a discretionary jurisdiction, the exercise of which should not ordinarily be made as there is an effective remedy provided in the very Section by way of suit Referring to a large number of decisions of different High Courts this Court in a decision reported in Smt. Sobhabati Vs. Lakshmi Chand and Others. has followed the aforesaid legal provision. 5. I would, therefore, refrain myself from going into the analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties in the Court below, as I do not find many error committed by the learned trial Court relating to the question of jurisdiction. Taking a broad view of the matter I do not find any serious error in the impugned judgment. Admittedly the Plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the suit house He had filed an application u/s 10 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act praying for necessary direction from the House Rent Controller for effecting repairs and thatch which according to him, the landlords have failed to do. During such stale of affairs, it does not stand to reason why the tenant would surrender the possession of the house in favour of the landlord as alleged by the Defendants. During such stale of affairs, it does not stand to reason why the tenant would surrender the possession of the house in favour of the landlord as alleged by the Defendants. A voluntary surrender of the suit house by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendants is alleged to have taken place on 3-5-1977 whereas the House Rent Control Case was filed on 18-5-1977. There is no plausible explanation as to why the Plaintiff having voluntarily vacated the house on 3-1-1977 would file a proceeding under the House Rent Control Act a fortnight after. It further appears that the Plaintiff had sent rent after the alleged date of voluntary surrender which does against the theory of voluntary surrender advanced by the Defendants. The discrepancies in the evidence of the Plaintiff which are mainly relied upon by the Petitioners in this revision would not be sufficient for a revisional Court to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and their demeanour. 6. In the result, I do not find any legal justification for interference and accordingly I dismiss this revision as having no merits. There would, however, be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed