N.K.SUD,J - (1.)THIS civil revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, dated 1.6.2000 whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order of the Rent Controller, Narnaul dated 26.5.1993 has been dismissed.
(2.)PETITION -landlords had sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the property in question had been let out to the respondent for running a shop whereas it had changed its user as it was using it as a godown. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the landlords had failed to prove the charge of change of user of the property. It has been observed that no Rent Deed has been produced to show that the property had been let out for use as a shop. The only evidence on which reliance was placed was the record of the Municipal Authorities wherein the property had been described as a shop and also receipts of rent. It was held that in the absence of any rent note, it could not be conclusively proved that the property in dispute had been let out as a shop.
Before me also, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the aforesaid material. At the outset. I am satisfied that this Court cannot interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two authorities below unless it is shown that the findings are so perverse that no reasonable mean can arrive at such a conclusion. That is not the position in the present case. The authorities below have taken a possible view and it is not open to this Court to reappraise the evidence to substitute its own view for the view taken by the two authorities.

(3.)EVEN otherwise, merely because a premises has been described as a shop in the municipal record, would not prove that it was not being used as a godown at the time when the property was let out. It may well have been a shop which was, right from the beginning, used as a godown. The rent note which would have thrown light on this subject has been produced. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same. Since, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.