Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present revision application has been filed by the petitioners-original plaintiffs, one of whom appears as party-in-person, for the prayer that the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 128/96 dated 25.11.1997 may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in the application, inter alia, that the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench is based on inference, not warranted by facts and on presumption not permitted by law. It is also contended that the courts below have failed to appreciate that as the plaintiffs had used the terrace, open land compound, latrine and therefore the possession cannot be disturbed by the landlord. It is also contended that the courts below, after holding that so long as the plaintiff is in possession as tenant of the suit premises, the defendants should not make any construction on the terrace except by following the procedure provided under the Bombay Rent Act, has grossly erred in dismissing the suit. It is also contended that the courts below have failed to appreciate that if any construction is made on the terrace or open land, the rights of the petitioners-original plaintiffs would be affected. It is also contended that the courts below have erred in holding that it cannot be said that when one portion was rented to one tenant, he was also rented the terrace. 2. Petitioner No. 2, Mr. Indrashankar Joshi has appeared as party-in-person and made the submissions and has also given written submissions. The sum and substance of the submissions are that the respondent No.1 -landlord has mislead the court. It is contended that an amount of Rs. 2900/- was paid by cheque dated 19.12.93 and thereafter the account was closed and thereafter when money order was sent for the rent it was not accepted and therefore it cannot said that the petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent for 20 years. It is also contended that by misleading the court and also in violation of the municipal laws, the respondent-landlord has made the construction by making construction of flats for allotment which has caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioners as they are entitled to use other portion like the compound as well as the terrace. It is also emphasised by party-in-person Mr. It is also emphasised by party-in-person Mr. Joshi that he was attacked by the landlord and in spite of the order of status-quo, the common bathroom as well as staircase etc. have been destroyed and construction of flat has been made. He also emphasised that in Lok Adalat the defendant was fined Rs. 1.25 as he was a senior citizen. However, the party-in-person has stated that the defendant has made illegal construction. He has referred to both the judgments. Mr. Joshi has submitted that he is ready and willing to make payment of the outstanding rent and he may be granted permission for repairing the premises in his occupation as well as use of the terrace. 3. Learned counsel Mr. K.V. Shelat has referred to the papers and submitted that as stated in the affidavit filed by the respondents by the Secretary of Muktimonohar Members’ Association, a registered NTC for the flats, the petitioners who are the tenants of one room, kitchen with WC is not disturbed and except this portion the petitioners are not the tenant of any other portion. The petitioners have not paid the rent since years for which outstanding amount of Rs. 4,020/- is also mentioned with the mesne profit. It is also contended that the petitioners are peacefully enjoying the premises, that is, one room kitchen with WC and chokdi facility which is in their possession. It is also contended that the Appellate Bench has given a right to the respondents-owner that as and when they intended to make construction above the said property, they may apply under Section 13 (A) of the Bombay Rent Act and can make construction. He submitted that internal plaster or repairing is not objected and they may carry out such work at their cost. However, the terrace was never forming part of the property let out to them and therefore they cannot claim any right for use and enjoyment of the terrace. Learned counsel Mr. Shelat submitted that when liberty has been reserved for further construction by the court, the same may not be disturbed. 4. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present revision application can be entertained or not. 5. It is well accepted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and normally the concurrent findings of facts are not required to be disturbed. 4. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present revision application can be entertained or not. 5. It is well accepted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and normally the concurrent findings of facts are not required to be disturbed. Though the revision Is under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, still, the scope would be confined to revisional jurisdiction and not the appellate jurisdiction as it cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of Patel Valmik Himatlal and Ors. vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai (dead) through LRs., reported in AIR 1998 SC 3325 , has referred to this aspect and has observed, “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 provisions of Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act empowers or enables the High Court to satisfy itself that any decision in appeal was according to law for which it may call for the record and proceedings. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction ?” 6. The provisions of Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act empowers or enables the High Court to satisfy itself that any decision in appeal was according to law for which it may call for the record and proceedings. Therefore, ti would imply that it empowers the High Court to correct the errors which may make the decision contrary to law or which errors can go to the root of the matter, but it does not empower the High Court to re-hear the matter or re-appreciate the evidence. 7. The same view has been reiterated in a subsequent judgment in the case of N. Eswari w/o Adinarayana vs. K. Swarjya Lakshmi, w/o Late K.V.L.N.A. Sastry, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 678 , where the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed referring to the earlier judgments that concurrent findings of facts by the courts below should not be dealt with or supplemented by independent assessment of the evidence by the High Court. 8. One of the petitioners-original plaintiffs filed H.R.P. Suit No. 4094/86 for permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit came to be dismissed by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and order dated 3.8.1996. Therefore, Civil Appeal No. 129/96 was preferred before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 25.11.1997. 9. As can be seen from the judgment of the Appellate Bench, while dismissing the appeal it was clarified that if the respondents or anyone claiming through or under them desire to make any construction as contemplated under Section 13(A) of the Bombay Rent Act, they must obtain necessary permission before making such construction. 10. As it is discussed in the judgment, the original landlord, defendant No. 1 had sold the other portion of the property to defendant No. 2-Association which constructed the flats and there is also a discussion with regard to the provisions of Section 13(A) which has reference to the use of terrace rights. The original plaintiffs, the petitioners herein are the tenants of premises bearing M.C. No. 63/2 and it was claimed that they had the right to use the terrace as well as the open land, bathroom, latrine, store room etc. The original plaintiffs, the petitioners herein are the tenants of premises bearing M.C. No. 63/2 and it was claimed that they had the right to use the terrace as well as the open land, bathroom, latrine, store room etc. However, after appreciation of evidence, it has been clearly found that the petitioners-original plaintiffs are the tenants of the premises which has been let out to them which consisted of one room, kitchen with WC. However, the claim regarding the terrace right was not accepted and the Appellate Bench has clearly observed, “This claim made in the deposition therefore cannot be accepted and this evidence cannot be said to be reliable. It is stated that terrace was used to accommodate the guest of the tenants and the children were also using the terrace for studying. The alleged shed on the terrace is also of iron sheets. There is no commissioner’s report pointed out before us.” It is in these circumstances, while dismissing the appeal, the observation has been made with regard to permitting the defendants to make construction after obtaining necessary permission as required under Section 13(A). 11. Therefore, the submission made by party-in-person Mr. Indrashankar Joshi about the terrace right cannot be accepted that he has exclusive right of the terrace. but it will be subject to the ultimate decision which may be given by the Small Causes Court when such an application is made for further construction by the defendants. 12. There is no dispute that the rent has not been paid. It is required to be mentioned that though the petitioner has stated that he has made the payment by cheque, he has not produced any evidence that the amount has been debited from the account, but, on the contrary, he states that the said account has been closed, meaning thereby, after giving the cheque, in fact, it has not been received or credited in the account of the landlord. 13. Be that as it may, the total amount outstanding is Rs. 4,020/- . This amount is required to be paid and on payment of such amount, his possession would not be disturbed. As stated by learned counsel Mr. Shelat. they have not disturbed his possession in respect of the tenanted portion of the premises. It is also clear that flats have been constructed and members are residing. 14. 4,020/- . This amount is required to be paid and on payment of such amount, his possession would not be disturbed. As stated by learned counsel Mr. Shelat. they have not disturbed his possession in respect of the tenanted portion of the premises. It is also clear that flats have been constructed and members are residing. 14. Therefore, another aspect which is left is repair of the tenanted portion which is in use and occupation of the petitioners-tenants who are required to be permitted to carry out the repairs at their cost. They may carry out the repairs, but they cannot make any claim for the terrace rights. 15. It is also required to be mentioned that HRP Suit No. 98/2004 filed by one of the petitioners herein, Mr. Indrashankar Joshi, has been allowed and the defendants, their agents, servants, particularly defendant No. 2, has been restrained from taking forcible possession of the suit premises as per the judgment and order dated 5.10.2006. Therefore, there is no question of disturbing the possession of the portion used and occupied by the petitioners. In the said judgment in HRP Suit No. 98/2004 it has been clearly observed that plaintiff’s apprehension of the forcible possession is believable and therefore on appreciation of evidence it has been allowed. The report of the court commissioner is also produced on record in HRP Suit No. 98/2004 to establish the portion in the possession and occupation of the petitioner-tenant and the same shall not be disturbed. 16. Therefore, with the aforesaid clarification, the present revision application deserves to be rejected as it does not call for any interference with the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes in Regular Civil Appeal No. 128/96 dated 25.11.1997. However, it would be subject to the aforesaid clarification that their possession shall not be disturbed and for further construction it will be according to the orders that may be passed by the Small Causes Court under Section 13(A) on an application that may be made by the respondents. The petitioner shall also deposit the amount of Rs. 4,020/- towards the outstanding rent and shall regularly pay the rent. The application accordingly stands disposed of as rejected with the aforesaid clarification. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.