JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - Concurrent findings of fact stand assailed by the tenants in this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2. In the year 2011, respondent Smt. Rajmohini Sood (hereinafter referred to as the landlady), filed a petition for ejectment against the present petitioners Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Smt. Sushma and Smt. Monika, all legal heirs of late Sh. Om Prakash (hereinafter referred to as the tenants). Pleadingly 234.87 square meters of land (approx.) along with one temporary structure (dhara), admeasuring 6 feet X 8 feet, was let out to late Sh. Om Prakash on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/-. The landlady requires the demised premises for she proposes to construct a three storeyed building for settling and securing her future as also that of her family and more particularly her grandson, who is physically handicapped. She has sufficient means to raise the construction and the requisite permissions under the municipal laws. Another ground for ejectment is non payment of rent w.e.f. 1.01.2011. 3. In rebuttal, while refuting the averments on merits, but admitting the factum of tenancy and the relationship, the tenants alleged concealment of prior litigation with respect to the demised premises. 4. On the strength of pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: "1. Whether the suit land is bonafidely required by way of construction which can not be carried out unless plot is vacant by respondent, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2011 @ Rs. 500/- per month till date, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether petitioner is stopped from filing the present petition, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether petitioner is hit by principle of resjudicata, if so its effect, as alleged? OPR 6. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 7. Whether petition has been filed by suppressing the material facts and petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, if so its effect? OPR 8. Relief." 5. Whether petitioner is hit by principle of resjudicata, if so its effect, as alleged? OPR 6. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 7. Whether petition has been filed by suppressing the material facts and petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, if so its effect? OPR 8. Relief." 5. The said Authority, in terms of its order dated 21.3.2016, passed in Rent Petition No. 29-2 of 13/11, titled as Rajmohini Sood vs. Pankaj Kumar & others, held the landlady to have established her bonafide requirement through her testimony (PW-2), as also testimonies of Yashwant Singh (PW-1) and Asha Thakur (PW-3). On issue No. 2, the Rent Controller found respondent Sushma (RW-1) to herself admitted non payment w.e.f. 1.01.2011 and, as such, allowed the petition also on this ground. On the basis of material on record, remaining issues also stood decided in favour of the landlady. 6. In appeal preferred by the tenants, the lower Appellate Authority, in terms of order dated 28.4.2017, passed in Rent Appeal RBT No. 1-S/13(b) of 2017/16, titled as Pankaj Kumar & others vs. Rajmohini Sood, concurred with the findings returned by the Rent Controller. 7. This Court, endeavoured to have the matter amicably resolved. In fact, the matter was referred to the Mediation of a Senior Advocate, a Trained Mediator, but parties could not arrive at any settlement. 8. On 29.08.2018, the Court observed as under: "It stands clarified that the petition filed under Section 14(3)(b)(ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sood, learned counsel, states that the petitioners have four storied building in the immediate neighbourhood and is also having rental income of Rs. 1.00 lacs (approximately) therefrom. Petitioner, namely, Pankaj Kumar, who is present in Court, on a Court query, admits the said fact to be true. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved." 9. Before this Court, Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel made the following submissions: (a) Findings returned by the Rent Controller on the issue of bonafide requirement are perverse; and (b) Proceedings stand initiated with a malafide intent, purpose and motive, reflective from an earlier petition, factum of which stood concealed. As such, on this count, the petition is maintainable. 10. The Rent Controller has dealt with the factum of filing of earlier petition. As such, on this count, the petition is maintainable. 10. The Rent Controller has dealt with the factum of filing of earlier petition. Significantly, earlier petition with respect to the demised premises, was strictly not inter se between the predecessor-in-interest of the parties herein. It was between third parties in which a compromise was effected. At that time, the then landlord accepted Om Prakash alone (predecessor-in-interest of the present tenants) as a tenant. With the revision of the rent @ Rs. 500/- per month, tenancy was confined only for the purpose of running the business of sale of coal and cement. The instant petition is filed in the year 2011, whereas, the earlier petition stood withdrawn with a compromise effected in the year 2002. And in the earlier petition, the predecessor-ininterest of the landlord had pleaded the tenant to be someone else, one of whom is the predecessor-in-interest of the present tenant. Thus, filing of the earlier petition had no bearing on the outcome of the instant petition and cannot be said to have been filed malafidely or with an oblique intent or motive, which in any case, was never revealed much less established. On this count, petition cannot be said to be non maintainable. 11. Coming to the core issue and that being first point raised by the learned counsel, one notices the provisions of the Statute to be unambiguously clear. For the sake of ready reference, relevant provisions whereof are reproduced as under: "Eviction of Tenants Section 14 (1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted there from in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise, whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. ... ... ... (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:- ... ... ... (b) In the case of rented land, if ... ... ... (ii) he requires rented land for construction of residential or non-residential building or for establishment of industry;" ... ... "Power to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses: Section 25. ... ... (b) In the case of rented land, if ... ... ... (ii) he requires rented land for construction of residential or non-residential building or for establishment of industry;" ... ... "Power to summon and enforce attendance of witnesses: Section 25. For the purposes of this Act, an Appellate Authority or a Controller appointed under this Act shall have the same powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of evidence as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." 12. Now what is the scope of such revisional jurisdiction and the extent of power which the court can exercise is well settled by a five-Judge Bench of the apex Court reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh , (2014) 9 SCC 78 . The findings can be summarized as under: (i) The term ''propriety'' would imply something which is legal and proper. (ii) The power of the High Court even though wider than the one provided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not wide enough to that of the appellate Authority. (iii) Such power cannot be exercised as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. (iv) Issues raised in the original proceedings cannot be permitted to be reheard as a appellate Authority. (v) The expression "revision" is meant to convey the idea of much narrower expression than the one expressed by the expression "appeal". The revisional power under the Rent Control Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power under Section 115 of the CPC but certainly it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal. While holding so the Court reiterated the view taken in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagawal , (1975) 2 SCC 246 . (vi). The meaning of the expression "legality and propriety" so explained in Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander , (1988) 3 SCC 131 was only to the extent that exercise of the power is not confined to jurisdictional error alone and has to be "according to law". (vi). The meaning of the expression "legality and propriety" so explained in Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander , (1988) 3 SCC 131 was only to the extent that exercise of the power is not confined to jurisdictional error alone and has to be "according to law". (vii) Whether or not the finding of fact is according to law or not is required to be seen on the touch stone, as to whether such finding of fact is based on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence; overlooking; ignoring the material evidence all together; suffers from perversity; illegality; or such finding has resulted into gross miscarriage of justice. Court clarified that the ratio of Ram Dass does not exposit that the revisional power conferred upon the High Court is as wide as an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a finding contrary to the findings returned by the authority below. (viii) In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction High Court shall not reverse findings of fact merely because on reappreciation of the evidence it may have a different view thereupon. (ix) The exercise of such power to examine record and facts must be understood in the context of the purpose that such findings are based on firm legal basis and not on a wrong premise of law. (x) Pure findings of fact are not to be interfered with. Reconsideration of all questions of fact is impermissible as Court cannot function as a Court of appeal. (xi) Even while considering the propriety and legality, high Court cannot reappreciate the evidence only for the purposes of arriving at a different conclusion. Consideration of the evidence is confined only to adjudge the legality, regularity and propriety of the order. (xii) Incorrect finding of fact must be understood in the context of such findings being perverse, based on no evidence; and misreading of evidence. 13. In the said decision the Court was dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, T. N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. 13. In the said decision the Court was dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, T. N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The incongruity in the decisions rendered by the apex Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana , (1993) 1 SCC 499 and Ram Dass was the backdrop in which the Constitution Bench was called upon to decide the scope of the revisional jurisdiction and the expression "legality and propriety" provided in the relevant statues. The essential question being as to whether in exercise of such powers, the revisional authority could reappreciate the evidence or not. Finally the Court answered the reference by making the following observations:- "43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity." 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, correctness, legality and propriety of the orders passed both by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are required to be examined. 15. From the record of the Rent Controller, so made available during the course of hearing, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is required in the instant case. It cannot be said that the findings are perverse; evidence not read and appreciated; based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous; and without consideration of the material evidence. 16. The testimony of the landlady is evidently clear and fully inspiring in nature. She has established her bonafide requirement. She is old and has a family. She wants her children and more specifically her handicapped grandson to be settled in life. Disability certificate is Ext. PW-2/D. She has got the means and resources to carry out the activity of construction. She is owner of the demised premises (Ext. PW-2/A and Ext. PW-2/B) and has got permission from the municipal authorities to raise such construction (Ext. PW-1/A, Ext. PW-3/A and Ext. PW-3/B). It is not a mere desire but her need. She wants to raise construction on the plot so as to ensure financial security, both for herself and rest of her family members. 17. On the other hand one of the tenants who stepped into the witness box (Sushma Rani, RW-1) has failed to establish her defence, of the landlady owning or possessing any other property to render the factum of bonafide requirement to be false or her case of bonafide requirement to be doubtful. It is on this count one does not find the findings returned by the Authorities below to be perverse, erroneous or illegal. 18. It is on this count one does not find the findings returned by the Authorities below to be perverse, erroneous or illegal. 18. In fact, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the tenants own and possess a four storeyed building in the immediate neighbourhood which is fetching rental of Rs. 1 lac per month. 19. This Court in Vishwa Nath vs. Rajnish Kumar and another , (1993) 2 ShimLC 109 has held requirement of the landlord, under the very same Statute, for putting the rented land for use by raising construction, can be both for residential and non residential purposes. 20. The Apex Court in K. S. Sundararaju Chettiar vs. M. R. Ramachandra Naidu , (1994) 5 SCC 14 considered the principles to be kept in mind by the authorities for adjudging bonafide requirement, and one of them being the objective consideration of the material on record, placed by the parties for determining the real intention of the landlord. The Court held that filing of previous litigation ipso facto would not be construed to be lack of such bonafides. To similar effect is the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy vs. B. Francis Jagan , (2001) 6 SCC 473 and Ashok Kumar vs. Ved Prakash & others , (2010) 2 SCC 264 . 21. The Apex Court in Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs. Asha Devi , (2016) 10 SCC 209 clarified that bonafide requirement has to be seen from the point of view of the landlady and cannot be dictated by the tenant. [ S.R. Babu vs. T. K. Vasudevan & others , (2001) 8 SCC 110 and Kasthuri Radhakrishnan & others vs. M. Chinniyan & another , (2016) 3 SCC 296 ] 22. The Apex Court in Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim , (2017) 8 SCC 611 emphasized the need of speedy and expeditious disposal of matters under the rent legislation in the following terms: "43. Before parting, we consider it apposite to observe that the object of the Rent laws all over the State is to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and tenant and especially those cases where the landlord seek eviction for his bona fide need. 44. Before parting, we consider it apposite to observe that the object of the Rent laws all over the State is to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and tenant and especially those cases where the landlord seek eviction for his bona fide need. 44. We sincerely feel that the eviction matters should be given priority in their disposal at all states of litigation and especially where the eviction is claimed on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. We hope and trust that due attention would be paid by all courts to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases." 23. The Apex Court in Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. , (2000) 1 SCC 679 , reiterated its earlier view as under: "8. In Kashibai v. Parwatibai , (1995) 6 SCC 213 , this Court, inter alia, held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, based on appreciation of the relevant evidence. 9. The only question to be decided in the suit was whether the plaintiff landlord wanted the suit premises for the bona fide requirement. The bona fide requirement of the landlord does not given rise to any substantial question of law and it has to be decided on the appreciation of evidence. This view was also expressed by this Court in Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros. , (1998) 6 SCC 748 ." 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no interference is warranted on the findings returned by the authorities below. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the same. Testimonies of the witnesses stand correctly and completely appreciated. Documentary evidence also stands considered. The provisions of law are correctly applied to the given facts and circumstances. As such, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.