As per case facts, the landlord initiated an eviction suit against his tenant on multiple grounds, including the tenant ceasing to occupy the premises and acquiring a new residence in ... his wife's name. The Rent Controlling Authority ordered eviction, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court, exercising its revisional powers, reversed these concurrent findings, concluding that the landlord had not established sufficient alternative accommodation for the tenant. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in re-assessing evidence and substituting its own conclusions, especially regarding concurrent findings of fact, in its revisional jurisdiction. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court committed a serious error by interfering with the well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact without any cogent reasons. The Court reiterated that revisional powers are not as broad as appellate powers and do not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the lower court's findings are perverse or lack evidence. The High Court's reasoning regarding the tenant's family size and the sufficiency of the new house was found to be unsupported by the record. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the eviction orders issued by the Rent Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority.