ORDER : Ruma Pal and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ. - Leave granted. The appellant is the landlord of certain premises. He had filed two suits for eviction of the respondents, being HRCs Nos. 509 and 508 of 1998, before the Rent Controller under the provisions of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the defence taken by the respondents, namely, that they were mortgagees of the premises was not established. Nevertheless, it was of the view that the claim for eviction could not be permitted because there had been no proof of attornment of the tenancies in favour of the appellant by the previous owner/landlord, one D. Rama Rao. 2. The appellant preferred a revisional application under Section 50 of the Act before the High Court. The High Court disposed of both the applications arising from the common judgment of the Rent Controller by an order dated 19-10-20011. The High Court was of the view that there was proof of attornment of the tenancies. It also came to the conclusion that the appellant had been able to establish the claim for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and had also proved bona fide requireme of the Rent Controller that the mortgage had not been proved by the respondents was upheld. The rent under Section 21(1)(i) as far as HRCs Nos. 508 and 509 of 1998 were concerned. The finding respondents were held to be tenants of the premises and were directed to vacate the premises within a month. 3. An application was made by the respondents before the High Court for review of the order dated 19-10-2001 *. In the application for review the only ground taken was that there was an agreement for sale dated 19-8-1996 executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant which "clearly established that the mortgage amount was adjusted towards total consideration payable by the appellant to his predecessor entitled (sic)". It has been stated therein: "Unfortunately the original of the said agreement was with the respondent (which is customary) and xeroxed signed copy of the same was with the predecessor-in-title of the respondent. Anyway, the petitioner was not in custody of the same. It has been stated therein: "Unfortunately the original of the said agreement was with the respondent (which is customary) and xeroxed signed copy of the same was with the predecessor-in-title of the respondent. Anyway, the petitioner was not in custody of the same. Now, since in spite of due diligence the petitioner could not produce the same either in the trial court or before this Hon'ble Court is annexing the same to this review petition." 4. On the basis of this agreement dated 19-8-1996 the entire decision taken on 19-10-2001 was reviewed by the High Court. The question as to whether there was a mortgage, was again gone into but negatived. It was again held2 that the respondents were tenants of the premises. However, the Court came to the conclusion that the agreement sought to be introduced by way of review by the respondents evidenced that the appellant was liable to pay an amount of rupees one lakh to the respondents. Therefore, the finding of default earlier taken in HRC No. 509 of 1998 was rejected as also the grounds of bona fide requirement. As far as HRC No. 508 of 1998 was concerned, the claim for eviction on the ground of default was rejected but the ground of bona fide requirement was reaffirmed. However, the claim for eviction under Section 21(1){h) of the Act was allowed conditionally upon the appellant refunding a sum of rupees one lakh to the respondents before executing the eviction order. 5. It is this order which is the subject-matter of challenge before us. The appeal must be allowed. 6. Apart from the question whether the High Court has the power to review an order passed under Section 50 of the Act, a question in respect of which we would like to record a grave doubt, there were no grounds before the High Court which would have justified a review according to the well-established principles which delimit such power as recognised by this Court. The decision of this Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650 has been wholly misinterpreted by the Court. The decision does not, as has been wrongly held by the High Court, lay down that the phrase "sufficient reason" has been given expanded meaning. 7. The decision of this Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650 has been wholly misinterpreted by the Court. The decision does not, as has been wrongly held by the High Court, lay down that the phrase "sufficient reason" has been given expanded meaning. 7. The High Court did not consider whether the agreement sought to be introduced by way of the review application by the respondents should have at all been admitted. It appears to have proceeded on the basis that the appellant had "admitted that the copy of the agreement to sell was a true copy of the original". The question whether a document is true or not can only arise only after the document is held to be admissible in evidence in accordance with the provisions of law. Where a document, according to the respondents' own statement in their application for review, did not form part of the records of either the trial court or the High Court and where there is no reason, let alone a sufficient one, as to why the document was not produced earlier, the High Court should not have admitted the same at all under any purported power of review. Incidentally, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in whose favour the alleged agreement is said to have been executed by the appellant, had appeared as a witness in the respondents' case before the Rent Controller. Therefore, the alleged agreement could have been produced without any difficulty whatsoever. It is not necessary to go into the other reasons for our disagreement with the view expressed by the High Court. It is sufficient to say that apart from the errors noted above the High Court has proceeded on a wholesale re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record much in excess of any power of review. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appeals are allowed. No costs.