(1) CIVIL No. 4212 of 1982 is filed by the tenant and Civil No. 4213 of 1982 is filed by the landlord. Both these appeals relate to the same building. The tenants appeal concerns the upstairs portion of the building which was leased as residential premises, but found to be used by the tenant as a godown. The landlords appeal concerns the lower portion of the building which was leased as business premises consisting of two shop rooms. (2) THE trial court accepting the case of the landlord held that the premises were reasonably required by her for her residence as well as for her business which was conducted by her husband during his life and continued by her after his death. This finding was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate court. On a revision filed by the tenant, the High court held that the landlord was in bona fide requirement of both the premises in question, but in respect of the lower portion of the building consisting of the shop rooms, the High court found comparative hardship in favour of the tenant and against the landlord. (3) MR P.S. Poti, appearing for the landlord, submits that all the three courts had found that the landlord was in bona fide requirement of both the premises. The trial court as well as the first appellate court had further found the question regarding comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. The High court, in revision, interfered with the findings of fact reached by the courts below and held that, notwithstanding the landlords bona fide requirement of both the premises, the tenant was entitled to win on the ground of comparative hardship in respect of the lower portion of the building. Mr Poti relies on the principles stated by this court in K.A. Anthappai v. Ahammed and contends that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact rendered by the courts below. (4) MR Harish Salve, appearing for the tenant, submits that the tenant has been in occupation of the premises for over 20 years. The upstairs portion of the building is bona fide required by the tenant for residential purposes and the downstairs portion for commercial purpose. (4) MR Harish Salve, appearing for the tenant, submits that the tenant has been in occupation of the premises for over 20 years. The upstairs portion of the building is bona fide required by the tenant for residential purposes and the downstairs portion for commercial purpose. Mr Salve further points out that the landlord is in occupation of another premises as a tenant and, therefore, her need to move into her own building is not bona fide. (5) IT is not disputed that the upstairs portion of the building, although leased to the tenant for residential purpose has been used by him as a godown. It is also not in dispute that the landlord is carrying on a business in scraps and that she bona fide requires the whole building for residence as well as business. Bona fide requirement is a question of fact. So is comparative hardship. These questions have to be decided on the basis of evidence on record. Appreciation of evidence is not the task of High court in exercise of its revisional power. On the facts of this case, the High court, in our view, was wrong in re-appreciating the evidence and reversing the conclusions concurrently reached by the courts below. (6) IN the circumstances, we allow the landlords appeal, i.e. Civil No. 4213 of 1982 and dismiss the tenants appeal, i.e., Civil No. 4212 of 1982. Accordingly, the suit for eviction in respect of both the premises shall stand decreed. However, in the circumstances, of this case, we make no orders as to costs.