Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present Civil Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant-original defendant under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act for the prayer that the Judgment & Order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2009 passed by the Principal District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) (Appellate Court) dated 19th April, 2010 confirming the Judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 622 of 1988 by the Additional Civil Judge, Amedabad (Rural), Mirzapur (lower Court) dated 24th December, 2008 may be quashed and set said on the ground stated in the memo of Revision Application. 2. It is contended inter alia that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record like election card as well as other documentary evidence, which suggest the possession and occupation of the suit premises and has erroneously given finding, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that it would make it clear that the applicant is residing since long, which is not possible without permission of the respondent, however, the said aspect has not been considered by both the Courts below. It is further contended that the respondent has failed to appreciate that both the judgments of both the Courts below are therefore erroneous and against the principles of law as both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material and facts. It is also contended that the respondent had demanded enhancement of a rent, which has resulted into this litigation. It is also contended that both the Courts have failed to appreciate that the applicant is a widow and her daughter is handicapped and, therefore, the present application may be allowed. 3. Learned Counsel, Ms. Trusha Mehta for the applicant has referred to the papers and submitted that the applicant is in occupation and possession of the premises since 1986 and there are documentary evidence to show that she is in occupation and possession of the premises as a tenant. She submitted that merely because there is no rent note, other documents could not have been brushed aside. She submitted that the applicant is widow and is not well aware with the law and, therefore, though the rent is charged and she has been allowed to stay without any rent note, the facts remain that the rent is being paid for which receipts are also issued. She submitted that the applicant is widow and is not well aware with the law and, therefore, though the rent is charged and she has been allowed to stay without any rent note, the facts remain that the rent is being paid for which receipts are also issued. Therefore, she pointedly referred to the receipts and submitted that both the Courts below have misdirected and failed to appreciate those aspects as well as other documentary evidence and have only focused that since there is no rent note, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and, hence, the applicant is a trespasser, which is erroneous. 4. Learned Counsel, Mr. Prajapati for the respondent submitted that the present Revision Application may not be entertained as there are concurrent findings of facts. He submitted that the scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction is very limited and in view of the concurrent findings of facts, the Court may not entertain the present Revision when both the Courts below have given findings on appreciation of evidence that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and the applicant is a trespasser. He pointedly referred to the documents and discussion on this aspect made in the judgment and submitted that the High Court may not reconsider and re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. In support of his submission, he referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1999 (1) GLH 15 in case of Patel Valmik Himatlal & Ors. vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai (Dead) Through L.Rs. and submitted that it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that Section 29(2) confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court to correct the error of law but does not permit re-appreciation of evidence. Again he emphasized the observation made therein to support his submissions. 6. He also referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) GLH 619 in case of Hasumati P. Gohel vs. Bavsar Tribhovandas Ratilal and submitted that it has been observed that the plaint as a whole has to be considered and the jurisdiction can be decided on the basis of the pleadings. Therefore as there is no relationship of the landlord and the tenant admittedly and as there is no rent note, the findings cannot be said to be illegal. 7. Learned Counsel, Mr. Therefore as there is no relationship of the landlord and the tenant admittedly and as there is no rent note, the findings cannot be said to be illegal. 7. Learned Counsel, Mr. Prajapati referred to the papers and submitted that the applicant has been inducted by the Respondent No. 1 and that has been considered and, therefore, she is not a tenant and as there is no rent note, the findings are arrived at by both the Courts below. He has also submitted that earlier Suit was filed, which has not been stated and, therefore, the petitioner has not come with clean hands. He referred to the judgment and submitted that it has also been stated in the reply to the Suit that the Respondent No. 1 has inducted her and the Respondent No. 1 has paid the rent. He has referred to reply, Exh. 47 to support his submission. Learned Counsel, Mr. Prajapati has also referred to the judgment reported in 2008 (3) GLR 2291 in case of Ramkumar Sukhchandan Gupta vs. Official Liquidator of the Navjivan Mills Company Ltd. & Ors. as well as 2008 (3) GLR 2486 in case of Rameshbhai Tank vs. Official Liquidator of Vijay Mills Ltd. and submitted that it has been observed that the occupant is required to prove that he is lawful inducted as tenant and rent receipt or such electric bill and election card are not a proof of that occupant was lawfully inducted as tenant. He has therefore submitted that the present application may not be entertained. 8. Learned Counsel, Mr. Prajapati has also referred to the judgment reported in 2010 (3) GLR 2052 in case of Dinesh Sakarabhai Pael & Anr. vs. Suryaben Navinchandra Shah and submitted that as observed by this Court, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the lower courts cannot be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He, therefore, submitted that the present Revision Application may be not entertained. 9. In rejoinder, learned Counsel, Ms. Mehta submitted that the documentary evidence is produced in support of her contention that the applicant is a tenant. Learned Counsel, Ms. Mehta submitted that it has also been referred in the judgment of the trial Court in Para No. 6 with regard to documentary evidence which is produced including the election card, letter of the Torrent Power, certificate issued by the Ghatlodiya Nagarpalika as well as Indian Gas Company. Learned Counsel, Ms. Mehta submitted that it has also been referred in the judgment of the trial Court in Para No. 6 with regard to documentary evidence which is produced including the election card, letter of the Torrent Power, certificate issued by the Ghatlodiya Nagarpalika as well as Indian Gas Company. She, therefore, submitted that merely because the rent note was not given to her taking advantage of her unawareness, it cannot be permitted to be exploited and both the Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect. It was submitted that in fact, such documents itself suggest that it would not have been issued to the applicant had she not been tenant occupying the premises. She further submitted that the Electricity Company giving connection would be with the knowledge of the respondent-landlord. She has also submitted that there is delay of two years in filing the Suit and, therefore, considering the submissions, the present Revision Application may be allowed. 10. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present application can be entertained or not. 11. For that purpose, first contention raised with regard to scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act is required to be considered. It is well accepted that the scope would be limited, however, Rent Act is a special statute. Section 29(2) of the Rent Act provides that :— “No further appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under Sub-section (1) but the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such decision in appeal was according to law, call for the case in which such decision was taken and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit.” 12. Thus, it empowers the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such decision in appeal was according to law or not. There is no quarrel on the preposition canvassed by the learned Counsel, Mr. Prajapati referring the judgments that the scope would be limited and normally the concurrent findings of facts are not required to be disturbed or interfered with. However, it is also well settled that the Court is required to consider whether the Courts below have misdirected in its approach while considering the provisions of law or interpreting the provisions of law or appreciating and considering the documentary evidence. However, it is also well settled that the Court is required to consider whether the Courts below have misdirected in its approach while considering the provisions of law or interpreting the provisions of law or appreciating and considering the documentary evidence. The findings arrived at on the basis of evidence including the documentary evidence will have to be considered in light of the established principles of law. Therefore, if the approach itself is erroneous, the High Court will have to consider as it can be go the root of the matter, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is required to be mentioned that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 3325 has considered Section 29(2) of the Rent Act and has specifically observed in Para Nos.5 and 6, which read as under :— “5. The ambit and scope of the said section came up for consideration before this Court in Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, (1987) 3 SCC 538 = ( AIR 1987 SC 1782 ) and after referring to a catena of authorities, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. drew a distinction between the appellate and the revisional jurisdictions of the Courts and opined that the distinction was a real one. It was held that the right to appeal carries with it the right of rehearing both on questions of law and fact, unless the statute conferring the right to appeal itself limits the rehearing in some way, while the power to hear a revision is generally given to a particular case is decided according to law. The Bench opined that although the High Court had wider powers than that which could be exercised under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet its revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the decision under challenge before it is according to law. The High Court cannot substitute its own findings on a question of fact for the findings recorded by the Courts below on reappraisal of evidence. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction ? 6. The powers under Section 29(2) are revisional powers with which the High Court is clothed. The High Court cannot substitute its own findings on a question of fact for the findings recorded by the Courts below on reappraisal of evidence. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction ? 6. The powers under Section 29(2) are revisional powers with which the High Court is clothed. It empowers the High Court to correct errors which may make the decision contrary to law and which errors go to the root of the decision but it does not vest the High Court with the power to rehear the matter and reappreciate the evidence. The mere fact that a different view is possible on reappreciation of evidence cannot be a ground for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.” 13. Therefore, it has been clearly observed that though the High Court is clothed, it empowers the High Court to correct errors which may make the decision contrary to law and which errors go to the root of the decision. At the same time, though it further expresses that merely because a different view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, revisional jurisdiction may not be exercised. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, one has to consider about the appreciation of evidence and the approach of the Court below. There is no dispute that there is no rent note, however, the documentary evidence, which has been produced clearly suggest about the possession and occupation of the premises and, hence, the applicant cannot be said be said to be a trespasser as observed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have focused only on the fact that there is not rent note brushing aside other documentary evidence, which has also been referred to. It is also required to be noted that this documentary evidence would normally not be issued by the authorities including the Election Commission, Local Authority or Electricity Company to a trespasser. Therefore, it rather suggests a laconical approach that because there is no rent note, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, the petitioner is a trespasser ignoring other documentary evidence. It is the duty of the Courts while appreciating the evidence to consider the substance of the arguments or issue based on the documentary evidence and documentary evidence itself is sufficient that the said documentary evidence would not be available to trespasser. It is the duty of the Courts while appreciating the evidence to consider the substance of the arguments or issue based on the documentary evidence and documentary evidence itself is sufficient that the said documentary evidence would not be available to trespasser. Assuming that the petitioner is a trespasser, the respondent would have taken steps to drive out the trespasser by taking appropriate measures including Police complaint but would not have permitted the applicant to have the electric connection, the election card, ration card and the certificate issued by the authorities and also connection of the gas. Therefore, without any further elaboration, entire approach of both the Courts below has remained a laconical without examining the evidence going to the root of the matter as to whether the possession and occupation of the premises by the applicant is as a tenant or licensee or as a trespasser. Once the possession is not held to be totally illegal like a trespasser, consequences must follow. 14. The submissions made by the learned Counsel, Mr. Prajapati with regard to the jurisdiction as well as the fact that the jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings and also referring to the written statement, Exh.47 are misconceived. It is well settled that the document or reply in the pleading has to be read as a whole and on the contrary, written statement, Exh. 47 clearly suggests as to how the possession was given and how the applicant came in possession and also amount of rent, which was fixed with the receipts. It is under these circumstances, the submission is misconceived. 15. Another facet of arguments much emphasized by the learned Counsel, Mr. Prajapati referring to the judgment reported in 2008 (3) GLR 2291 as well as 2008 (3) GLR 2486 where facts pertains to the provisions of the Companies Act and Liquidator was in-charge and in that context, the observations have been made which has no application to the facts of the case. 16. Therefore, in light of the discussion hereinabove, the present Revision Application deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Application is allowed. 16. Therefore, in light of the discussion hereinabove, the present Revision Application deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Application is allowed. The Judgment & Order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2009 passed by the Principal District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) (Appellate Court) dated 19th April, 2010 confirming the Judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 622 of 1988 by the Additional Civil Judge, Amedabad (Rural), Mirzapur (lower Court) dated 24th December, 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. P P P P P