1. Rule, returnable forthwith, by consent.

2. The present civil revision application challenges the order passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.5105 of 1977 as well as the order of the appeal Court in Appeal No.50 of 2000.

3. The applicants claim to be the tenants of Respondents-plaintiffs. The applicant filed a suit namely R.A.D. Suit No.2325 of 1977 for a declaration and injunction against the Respondents. Another suit being R.A.E. & R Suit No.5105 of 1977 for eviction of the applicants from the suit premises was filed by the Respondents. The eviction suit was mainly filed on the ground that applicant No.1 who was the tenant had sublet the premises to applicant Nos.2 and 3 without the permission of the landlord. The other ground for ejectment was that applicant No.1 was in arrears of rent. The plaint was later amended and an additional ground for eviction was pleaded, that the applicant No.1 had acquired a suitable, alternate accommodation. Common evidence was led in both the suits. The trial Court decreed both the eviction suit on 13.1.2000 and dismissed the Applicant’s suit. The applicants, therefore, preferred two appeals. The appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court in the suit filed for a declaration and injunction and dismissed the suit. However, the judgment and order of the trial Court in the eviction suit was confirmed by the appellate Court. The eviction decree passed on the ground of non-user of the suit premises was set aside. However, the decree was confirmed on the ground of subletting and acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation by the applicants.

4. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellate Court in confirming the decree passed by the trial Court on the aforesaid two grounds the applicants have preferred the present civil revision application.

5. Mr.Dani, appearing for the applicants, contended that both the Courts below have erroneously held that applicant No.1 had acquired a suitable alternate accommodation abroad. He submits that it could not be said that applicant No.1 had acquired alternate accommodation when in fact there was no evidence on record that applicant No.1 had left India and was permanently residing abroad. He points out that the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in J.Marathe & Ors. P.V. Kaloke 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 287 to submit that acquisition of residential premises by a tenant in a different town will not ipso factor amount to acquisition of alternative suitable residential premises within the meaning of section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as `Bombay Rent Act’). He then submits that both the Courts have erroneously held that the premises were sublet by applicant No.1 to applicant Nos.2 and 3. The learned advocate submits that when a landlord seeks a decree of eviction on the ground of subletting the landlord must establish not only that somebody other than the tenant was occupying the suit premises but also that the premises were occupied by the third person for some consideration. He submits that this Court in Surendra M. Wagh & Anr. v/s. Manohar Krishna Kale & Anr., 2006(4) ALL MR 19, C.C.YI (Dr.) v/s. Janakidevi Anantlal Gupta & Ors., 2001(4) Mh.L.J.114, Laxminarayan Motilal Gupta v/s. Bhagwandas Bhagonelal Sahu & Anr., 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 646 and in the case of Vasant Mahadev Pandit & Anr. v/s. Zaibunnisa Abdul Sattar Dhuru & Anr., 2001 Vol. 103 (2) Bom.L.R. 437 has taken a consistent view that the landlord must establish that the tenant had parted with the possession of the suit premises for valuable consideration. He submits that both the Courts below have ignored these judgments of this Court and therefore have committed an error by decreeing the suit on the ground of subletting.

6. Mr.Dani points out that the evidence on record does not satisfy the ingredients of subletting. He submits that defendant No.1 was admittedly the tenant of the p