JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. This Revision petition has been filed under Section24(5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (for short, the Act) against the judgment dated 24.07.2023, passed by learned appellate Authority Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in Civil Appeal No.1-R/14 of 2023, whereby the order of eviction dated 14.12.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller, Rampur Bushahr in Case No.4/2016 has been affirmed. 2. The petitioner herein is the tenant and respondents are the landlords. For the sake of convenience, they will be hereafter referred to as tenant and landlords, respectively. 3. The landlords filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from the premises i.e. House No.45, Ward No.4, Kasba Bazar Rampur Bushahr, H.P. (hereafter referred to as the “building”) 4. It was alleged that the premises consisted of one shop on the ground floor and two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor. The rent was claimed at Rs.1,200/- per month since 2004, where after the tenant allegedly had stopped the payment. It was alleged that the landlords required the premises for their own use and occupation and for the use of their unemployed young members of the family, who were having professional degrees. It was also alleged that the premises were made of rough stones with no plaster and had outlived its life. The building required reconstruction which was not possible without vacation of premises. The landlords further submitted that they were not occupying any other residential or non-residential building in urban area of Rampur Bushahar and they had also not vacated such a building within last five years preceding the date of filing of petition. 5. The tenant contested the petition by alleging that the tenant hired the accommodation from Mansa Ram, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the landlords. Since, the landlords were not the only legal heirs of Mansa Ram, the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The tenant claimed to have paid the rent up to the year 2014. The alleged requirement of the landlords of the building for reconstruction or their personal use was also denied. 6. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: “1) Whether the petitioners are in bonafide requirement of tenanted premises for their own use and occupation, as alleged ….OPP. The tenant claimed to have paid the rent up to the year 2014. The alleged requirement of the landlords of the building for reconstruction or their personal use was also denied. 6. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: “1) Whether the petitioners are in bonafide requirement of tenanted premises for their own use and occupation, as alleged ….OPP. 2) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since 01.01.2014 and if it being so, what is the actual amount of rent due against him, as alleged? ….OPP. 3) Whether tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the petitioners for the purpose of reconstruction, as alleged?….OPP. 4) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged ….OPP. 5) Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged ….OPP. 6) Whether petitioners are estopped from filing present petition by their own act, conduct, commission and omission etc., as alleged ….OPP. 7) Whether petitioners have no cause of action to file and maintain this petition against respondent as alleged ….OPR. 8) Whether this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition as alleged? ….OPR. 9) Relief.” 7. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and the remaining issues were decided in negative. The petition was allowed on the grounds firstly that the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2014. The rent due from the tenant was calculated at Rs.2,01,432/-. Secondly, the building was held to be required bonafide by the landlords for their personal use. 8. The tenant filed an appeal against the order of eviction passed by learned Rent Controller. Learned appellate authority (Ii) Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar dismissed the appeal of the tenant vide impugned judgment. The findings and conclusion drawn by learned Rent Controller have been affirmed and the eviction on both grounds has been ordered. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 10. Learned counsel for tenant has submitted that the findings drawn by learned Rent Controller and affirmed by learned appellate Authority are illegal and perverse as these are not based on legal evidence. It has also been submitted that the landlords had failed to prove their bonafide which was sine qua non for grant of eviction order in their favour. 11. Learned counsel for tenant has submitted that the findings drawn by learned Rent Controller and affirmed by learned appellate Authority are illegal and perverse as these are not based on legal evidence. It has also been submitted that the landlords had failed to prove their bonafide which was sine qua non for grant of eviction order in their favour. 11. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act will neither sit as a Court of appeal nor will substitute its opinion unless the order assailed is found to be suffering from absolute illegality or perversity. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 the Constitution bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “30. We have already noted in the earlier part of the judgment that although there is some difference in the language employed by the three Rent Control Acts under consideration which provide for revisional jurisdiction but, in our view, the revisional power of the High Court under these Acts is substantially similar and broadly such power has the same scope save and except the power to invoke revisional jurisdiction suo motu unless so provided expressly. None of these statutes confer on revisional authority the power as wide as that of the appellate court or appellate authority despite such power being wider than that provided in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision under consideration does not permit the High Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. Revision does not lie under these provisions to bring the orders of the trial court/Rent Controller and the appellate court/appellate authority for rehearing of the issues raised in the original proceedings. XXX XXX XXX 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 re-appreciation 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. 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.” 12. Having gone through the record, I found that one of the landlords, namely, Sohan Lal has appeared as his own witnesses (PW-1). He deposed that the landlords were not having any house in Rampur market and they were residing at Nirsu, which was 10-11 Kms away from the town. He further submitted that their children were holding professional degrees and were unemployed and for such purpose also the building was required to establish them. 13. In support of their claim, the landlords also examined one Sudhanshu Kapoor as PW-2. Though, the witnesses of landlords were cross-examined at length, but their version that the landlords were requiring the premises for their own use as they do not have any other premises in Rampur Town and had to commute to their village which was at a distance of 10-11 Kms from the town remained unshattered. Similarly, the tenant while appearing as his own witness had admitted that the ancestral house of the landlords was in village in Nirsu. Similarly, the tenant while appearing as his own witness had admitted that the ancestral house of the landlords was in village in Nirsu. He could not produce any material to show that the landlords were having any other building in same Municipal area. 14. The learned Rent Controller and learned appellate authority have concurrently found the requirement of landlords qua the premises for their own use to be bonafide. In absence of any material to the contrary, such findings cannot be said to be illegal or perverse, more particularly keeping in view the restrictive jurisdiction of this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act. 15. It is more than settled that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement. The tenant cannot dictate the terms. Once the claim of the landlord is found to be bonafide and learned Rent Controller is satisfied in that regard, no fault can be found with the order of eviction passed against the tenant. 16. Nothing has been stated on behalf of the tenant with respect to other ground of arrears of rent on which the eviction order has been passed against him. 17. In result, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.