( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed by the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 36 of 1965 against defendants for recovery of the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting and arrears of rent. The suit of the plaintiffs having been dismissed by both the Courts below they have preferred the present revision application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they had let the suit premises to defendant No. 1 who is since deceased on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/for the ground floor and Rs. 20/for the upper floor in addition to the municipal tax and other taxes. That defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit premises as a statutory tenant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant did not pay rent regularly and was in arrears from 1 March 1965; that defendant No. 1 had sublet part of the premises to defendant No. 2 without the consent of the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs by a notice dated and January 1966 demanded arrears of rent and taxes and terminated tenancy of defendant No. 1 and claimed possession of the suit premises. On the aforesaid grounds the said suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Civil Judge (J D.) Kalol Dist. Mehsana.

( 3 ) ORIGINAL defendant No. 1 contested the suit by written statement Ex. 30 and contended that he was the tenant of the entire building consisting of three parts and the rent of three parts was Rs. 125/per month; that it was reduced to Rs. 121/at a later stage; that from 1-8-49 the rent of the entire building; was Rs. 141 P. M. that he was ready and willing to pay the rent that the agreed rent was not the Standard rent and hence the standard rent was required to be fixed that the 2nd defendant was sublet part of the premises since prior to 21st May 1959 and hence his possession was protected and defendant No. 1 was not liable to be evicted on the ground of subletting that defendant No. 1 also resisted the plaintiffs claim of possession on the ground of arrears ofrent and contended that he was a tenant ready and willing to pay the rent and he was not liable to be evicted on that ground. Defendant No. 2 also contended that subletting in his favour was protected as he was a sub-tenant since 1943.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge after framing issues and recording evidence came to the conclusion that defendant No 1 was a tenant in are are for more than 6 months on the date of the suit but was ready and willing to pay the rent and hence he was not liable to be evicted under sec. 1 2 (3) (b) of the Act. It was further found that defendant No. 1 had not unlawfully sublet the suit premises and that defendant No. 1 had a right to create sub-lease. that the standard rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 60/per month and on these findings the learned trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs suit for possession against the heirs of defendant No. 1 (who had died pending the suit) as well as against diffident No. 2 by his judgment and decree dated 9-12-1974.

( 5 ) THE petitioners challenged the said decree by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1975 before the District Court Mehsana. Pending the said appeal the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the plaint Ex. 11 on the record. By the said application the petitioners wanted to introduce averments regarding some subsequent event which had happened pending the suit. It was contended by the petitioners by the proposed amendment that pending the suit defendant No. 1 had tried to induct new sub-tenants who were sought to be joined as defendants 3 and 4 and it was requested that the plaintiff be permitted to put forward this new ground of alleged subletting by defendant No. 1 pending the suit in favour of the proposed defendants 3 and 4. That application came to be rejected by the. Learned appellate Judge on the ground that it rested on a new cause of action and hence it