(1) THE tenant (appellant) has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that the landlady (respondent) bona fide requires the premises in occupation of the tenant for the purposes of conducting her own business. The tenant is in appeal by special leave. (2) THE courts below have found that the landlady does require the premises in the tenants occupation for the purposes of business and that the requirement is bona fide. It has also been found that there is no evidence to show that the landlady owns other premises wherein this business can be carried on and that the place where this business is presently carried on is taken by the appellant on rent. The High court, in a petition filed by the tenant under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, has affirmed the findings of the court also. (3) IT is submitted by Mr Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the tenant, that the jurisdiction of the High court under Section 25 is wide and that the High court erred in not considering the contention on behalf of the tenant that the landlady was a member of a joint family which owned several other properties, some of which were available for the purposes of carrying on her business and that a deed of Partition had not in fact been acted upon. (4) THE High court, in a petition under Section 25 of the said Act, it has been held in Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander , is entitled to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of the order under revision. This jurisdiction "enables the court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of fact also, though the revisional court is not a second court of first appeal". We do not think that the court has failed to act within the four corners which this court set down in Ram Dass case . This jurisdiction "enables the court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of fact also, though the revisional court is not a second court of first appeal". We do not think that the court has failed to act within the four corners which this court set down in Ram Dass case . It is not necessary, where the High court agreed with the findings given by the courts below, to go into details of the correctness of the Findings of fact, act as a second court of first appeal and set down in the judgment detailed reasons for agreeing with those findings, We are satisfied that in the instant case the judgment of the High court suffers from no infirmity and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. (5) BY consent of parties, the tenant-appellant is given time uptil 31/8/1994 to vacate the premises upon condition that a partner of the appellant only authorised in this behalf files the usual undertaking in this court within four weeks from today.