- (1.) - Special leave granted. Arguments heard.
(2.) The subject-matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment of the High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 180 of 1985 on 7th March, 1990 setting aside the judgments of the Courts below where both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court conclusively found that the building is in a dilapidated condition and as such it needs to be reconstructed. The High Court in revision reappreciated the evidences and reversed the concurrent findings of the Courts below and found as follows:- "I am of the considered opinion that the authorities below have not correctly read the same with the result that wrong conclusions against the tenant have been drawn. It is clear from the evidence that the building is not in a dilapidated condition. There is no evidence that the Municipal Committee, Nahan, ever issued any notice to the landlord or the tenant in this regard. It would have been much better in case the landlord had agreed to reconstruct the premises within a particular time and put back the tenant in the premises on completion thereof. But unfortunately that has not happened." It appears that both the Presiding Officers of both the Courts below have in fact inspected the building and came to the firm finding that the building is old and is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, it needs reconstruction of the building and so the order of eviction was passed by the trial Court and the same was affirmed by the lower appellate Court.
(3.) It is well settled position in law that under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and cannot set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below by taking different view of the evidence. The High Court is empowered only to interfere with the findings of fact if the findings are perverse or there has been a non-appreciation or non consideration of the material evidence on record by the Courts below. Simply because another view of the evidence may be taken is no ground by the High Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction.;