ORDER 1. HEARD PARTIES. 2. THE RENT CONTROLLER DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR EVICTION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP IN APPEAL, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE PRAYER FOR EVICTION. THE TENANTS MOVED THE HIGH COURT IN REVISION WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROLLER HAS BEEN RESTORED. HENCE THIS APPEAL BY WAY OF SPECIAL LEAVE. 3. FROM A BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE HIGH COURT IN EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION HAS REAPPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE AND REVERSED THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED, BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH WAS THE FINAL COURT OF FACT. NOWHERE HAS IT BEEN STATED IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT THAT THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS A PERVERSE ONE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE HIGH COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CAN INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF FACT IN CASE IT IS FOUND TO BE PERVERSE. AS THE FINDING IN THE PRESENT CASE RECORDED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS NOT PERVERSE, THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING THE SAME. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER RENDERED BY THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF EVICTION PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS RESTORED. THE RESPONDENTS ARE GRANTED TIME TILL 30-6-2006 TO VACATE THE PREMISES IN DISPUTE UPON FILING USUAL UNDERTAKING BEFORE THIS COURT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM TODAY. NO COSTS.