JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Tenant is the petitioner, who aggrieved by the orders of eviction that have been concurrently passed by the learned authorities below, has filed the instant revision petition. The parties shall be referred to as the landlords and the tenant. 2. The landlords filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the shop measuring 3.00 x 6.60 metres shown as ABCD. in the site plan belonged to their grandfather Shri Bachna Ram. It was rented to the tenant on 15.02.1976 and the rent thereafter intermittently increased from time to time and in August, 2001, it was enhanced to Rs.500/ per month, but the tenant had paid rent only uptill 01.11.2011 and thereafter did not pay the rent till the date of petition. In addition, the eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant had changed the wooden door by an iron shutter and misappropriating the verandah 5x10 feet in front of the shop thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the building. The eviction was further sought on the ground that the tenant having ceased to run the Karyana shop in the premises since March, 2006 and from September, 2012 completely ceased to occupy the premises for continuous period of 12 months without any reasonable cause. The eviction was also sought on the ground of bonafide requirement as it was averred that one of the landlords was unemployed and have no income of his own and intended to run restaurant and other commercial business in the premises. Lastly, the eviction was sought on the ground that the premises were required for building and rebuilding and making substantial addition and alteration which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. 3. The tenant resisted and contested the petition on the grounds of maintainability, estoppel and non-joinder of necessary party etc. On merits, it was averred that after the death of the previous owner late Shri Bachna Dass, his son i.e. father of the landlords Shri Roop Lal represented himself as landlord of the rented premises and received the rent from him upto the month of October, 2013 and the rent was paid on such representation. Thus, the petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of Shri Roop Lal as a party. Thus, the petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of Shri Roop Lal as a party. Apart from it, it was pleaded that the shop was in fact being used as a Store from the year 1976 itself and no condition was imposed in the rent deed. The rate of the rent as claimed was denied by the tenant and he specifically denied having entered into an agreement in August, 2001 to increase the rent from Rs.225/ to Rs.500/ per month. It was averred that initially Shri Bachna Dass used to give receipt, but after his death Shri Roop Lal did not issue any receipt. The iron shutter was claimed to have been installed by its previous owner late Shri Bachna Dass himself in the year 1986-87 to increase the value of the property and to afford protection to the same. The tenant pleaded that no verandah ever existed in front of the shop. The tenant having ceased to run the business for the alleged period was also specifically denied. It was averred that the plea of bonafide requirement raised by the landlords was a concocted one just to seek his eviction. The father of the landlords was retired person from H.P. Forest Department and landlord No.1 Vivek had started a new Chemist Shop in the name of Rudra Medical Store in the month of August, 2013, whereas, landlord No.2 was also claimed to be well employed being qualified Engineer. 4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller on 11.06.2014 framed the following issues: "1. Whether the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01-11-2001 till date at the rate of Rs.500/ per month and he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,15,120/ along with interest, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the tenant has replaced the wooden door of the demised premises with an iron shutter and has committed such an act which is likely to impair the value or utility of the demises premises, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the tenant has ceased to run karyana business in the demised premises w.e.f. 08-02-2006 till September, 2012 and he has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months without any reasonable cause, as alleged? OPP. 4. OPP. 3. Whether the tenant has ceased to run karyana business in the demised premises w.e.f. 08-02-2006 till September, 2012 and he has ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months without any reasonable cause, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the demised premises are bona fidely required by the petitioners for running a restaurant and starting any commercial business in order to earn their livelihood, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the demised premises are required for carrying out construction or reconstruction work or making additions or alterations and such works cannot be done without the eviction of the tenant, as alleged? OPP. 6. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR. 7. Whether the respondent paid rent at the rate of Rs.225/- to Shri Roop Lal till October, 2013, as alleged? OPR. 8. Whether the respondent offered rent at the rate of Rs.225 per month to the petitioners but they refused to receive the same, as alleged? OPR. 9. Whether the iron shutter in the demised premises was installed by late Shri Bachan Dass in the year 1986-87, as alleged? OPR. 10. Relief." 5. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the tenant was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the following grounds: (i) That the demises premises is bonafide required by the petitioners for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction. (ii) Demises premises were altered by the respondent to impair its value. (iii) The respondent was further held in arrears of rent that were calculated at Rs.1,37,133/- and the same were directed to be paid within 30 days or else the tenant would be evicted from the demised premises on this ground alone. 6. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant filed an appeal before the learned appellate authority and the landlords aggrieved by the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.3 filed cross appeal. Both, the appeal as well as the cross appeal came up for consideration before the learned appellate authority, who vide judgment dated 30.11.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed the cross appeal filed by the landlords. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the appellate authority, the tenant has filed this instant revision petition contending therein that the findings recorded by the learned authorities below are perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the appellate authority, the tenant has filed this instant revision petition contending therein that the findings recorded by the learned authorities below are perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 8. Before adverting to the arguments of the respective parties, it would be relevant to bear in mind the scope of the revisional jurisdiction which this Court can exercise. 9 At the outset, the scope of revisional jurisdiction which the Court can exercise must be borne in mind, as the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 laid down certain broad principles for exercise of revisional jurisdiction which 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 (supra) 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." 10. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme 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. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana, (1993) 1 SCC 499 and Ram Dass (supra) 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 Hon’ble Supreme 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." 11. Bearing in mind the law propounded in the aforesaid decision, this Court will now consider whether the findings recorded by the learned authorities below are, in fact, perverse as is alleged by the tenant. 12. It is vehemently argued by Shri Anshul Attri, learned counsel for the tenant that since the tenant has disputed the status of the petitioners as landlords, therefore, a specific issue should have been framed by the learned Rent Controller. 13. This contention is without merit as in the reply filed to the eviction petition, the tenant did not specifically deny the title of the landlords. Moreover, no issue qua relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties was claimed. Not only that in case the tenant earnestly and bonafidely believed that proper issues had not been framed, why he took no steps to rectify these issues, is not at all forthcoming. It would be noticed that the learned appellate authority has looked into the entire evidence to determine such question. Even though, this exercise was not required to be undertaken as it is more than settled that the evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be looked into. 14. It is then argued by Shri Attri that the bonafide requirement of the shop in dispute also stands falsified inasmuch as Mr. Ritesh Kashyap, one of the landlords, is doing a job and, therefore, there is no such bonafide requirement. 15. Even this contention is without merit. The mere fact that one of the landlords is well educated or working in some establishment would not mean that his requirement is not bonafide as it has specifically come on record that the landlords intend to start some business from the premises in dispute. 16. 15. Even this contention is without merit. The mere fact that one of the landlords is well educated or working in some establishment would not mean that his requirement is not bonafide as it has specifically come on record that the landlords intend to start some business from the premises in dispute. 16. A faint attempt, at this stage, is then made by Shri Attri that the tenant has not impaired the value and utility of the building. 17. However, I find that this question has been considered in detail not only by the learned Rent Controller, but by the learned appellate authority and the same being a pure finding of fact is not open for interference, more particularly, that there is no perversity in such findings. 18. Noticeably, the cross appeal filed by the landlords questioning issue No.3 was accepted by the learned appellate authority and no serious effort was made to dispute the same by the tenant and the reason for it is obvious that for it has been duly proved on record that not a single unit of electricity was consumed in the premises for a continuous period of 12 months and the same remained closed during this period. 19. Learned counsel for the tenant has failed to prove and establish how the findings recorded by the learned authorities below are perverse in any manner. 20. No material has been brought on record and no proof has been made available on record by the tenant by any positive material that the requirement of the landlords for the purpose of building or rebuilding and bonafide requirement for which the vacation has been sought, is not bonafide, but a mere excuse or pretence to get rid of the tenant. 21. The learned Rent Controller has passed a detailed order, wherein it has not only discussed the pleadings, in detail, but has also discussed the evidence threadbare and thereafter ordered the eviction of the tenant. 22. As regards, the learned appellate authority, it has again not only discussed the entire pleading and evidence, but has also correctly applied the law while affirming the findings as recorded by the learned Rent Controller. Thus, it cannot be said that both the learned authorities below have, without satisfying themselves regarding claim of the landlords being bona fide or not, simply ordered the eviction of the tenant. 23. Thus, it cannot be said that both the learned authorities below have, without satisfying themselves regarding claim of the landlords being bona fide or not, simply ordered the eviction of the tenant. 23. As observed above, the tenant has failed to lead any evidence or produce on record any positive material to show and establish that the requirement of the landlords is neither genuine nor bona fide. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference is warranted on the findings rendered by both the learned authorities below. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in such findings. The testimonies of the witnesses stand correctly and completely appreciated. The oral and documentary evidence also stand considered in its right perspective and even the provisions of law have been correctly applied to the given facts and circumstances of the case. 25. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed alongwith all pending applications, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.