KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner applied for occupancy rights in form No. 7 which is rejected by a cryptic order. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal in a considered order has held that there is no document to prove that the petitioner was in possession on the appointed date i. e. , 1-3-1974 and in these circumstances dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner-tenant has preferred this revision petition. ( 2 ) THIS Court has consistently taken the view that there can be no reappraisal of evidence in a revision petition. The learned counsel drew my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Racha Naika v State of Karnataka and Others, wherein this Court has held:"the Appellate Authority on consideration of oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a tenant and is not entitled to occupancy right. This finding of fact is that of the final Court of fact. The scope of revision under Section 121-A of the Act is limited and does not extend to re-appreciation of fact. In the decision in Thimmamma v Siddarangaiah, this Court has held that, "it is thus clear that the scope of revision under Section 121-A of the Act is limited and does not extend to re-appreciation of facts". It is clear that there has been no evidence established before the appellate Authority to rebut the presumption in favour of the landlord. In these circumstances, no point arises for consideration. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .