As per case facts, the appellant-landlord, a widowed lady, sought eviction of tenants from two premises based on her bona fide requirement for herself and her brother-in-law's joint family. The ... Rent Controller granted the eviction orders. However, the High Court reversed these orders, contending that the landlord had not accurately described the property and provided misleading information regarding its ownership and extent. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Rent Controller's findings on bona fide requirement due to alleged property misdescription, especially considering the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under the relevant statute. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court overstepped its revisional powers. It found that, viewing the pleadings and evidence holistically, there was no significant misdescription causing prejudice to the tenants. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller's factual findings on bona fide requirement, being based on valid reasons, should not have been disturbed on vague grounds, thus restoring the original eviction orders and granting tenants additional time to vacate.