( 1 ) THE plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of possession against the defendants on two grounds. Defendant No. 1-tenant - had not used the suit premises for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit and he had no reasonable cause to do so. Defendant No. 1 - the tenant - had unlawfully sublet a part of the suit premises to defendant No. 2. The suit premises are business premises where the powerlooms have been installed. The suit premises consist of three survey numbers - 16/14 16 and 401/8. The rent agreed upon between the parties was Rs. 55. 00 per month The plaintiff alleged that survey no. 16/24 a part of the suit premises was unlawfully sublet by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2. Similarly survey no. 401/8 another part of the suit premises was unlawfully sublet by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2 Survey No 16/24 had not been used by defendant no. 1 within the meaning of sec. 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2 In defence it was contended by defendant no. 1 that he had been using and occupying all of them and that his powerlooms were there. It was further alleged by defendant no. 1 that defendant no. 2 had trespassed into survey No. 401/8 a part of the suit premises and that in collusion with the plaintiff he had handed over its possession to the plaintiff soon after institution of the suit. 3 The learned trial Judge raised necessary issues and recorded his findings as follows: The Plaintiff had not proved that survey No. 16/24 was unlawfully sublet by defendant no. 1 to defendant no 2. The plaintiff had proved that defendant no. 1 had not used survey No 16/24 within the meaning of sec. 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act. The plaintiff had proved that defendant no. 1 had unlawfully sublet survey No. 401/8 to defendant no. 2. In view of the findings which he recorded in respect of survey Nos. 16/24 and 401/8 he passed against the defendant no. 1 decree for possession. 4 Defendant no. 1 appealed against the decree to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad. In this appeal two findings were challenged by the defendant no. 1. The first finding related to survey No 16/24 and another finding related to survey No. 401/8. The plaintiff who was respondent did not try to challenge the finding recorded in respect of survey no. 16/24. The Appellate Bench confirmed the findings recorded against defendant no. 1 and dismissed the appeal. It is that appellate decree which is challenged by defendant no. 1 in this Civil Revision Application. 5 Mr. Nanavaty who appears on behalf of defendant no. 1 has firstly challenged the finding recorded by the lower appellate court in respect of survey No. 16/24. The finding as to non user of survey No. 16 recorded by the Appellate Bench is a finding of fact. The Appellate Bench has observed that all the partners of defendant no. 1 firm have been residing outside Ahmedabad where the suit premises are situate. They had not led sufficient evidence to prove what was the actual business which was carried on in survey no. 16/24. The electric supply in survey No. 16/24 was disconnected for a long time. The partners of the defendant no. 1 firm had not examined their servant or agent who was alleged by them to be carrying on business in survey No. 16/24. From these facts the lower appellate court has recorded the finding that survey No. 16/24 was not used for very long time more than six months prior to the institution of this suit. The inference which has been drawn by the lower appellate court is its judgment is an inference of fact with which this Court cannot interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6 However Mr. J. R. Nanavaty has raised a legal contention with regard to the applicability of sec. 13 (1) (k) of the Bombay Rent Act. According to him if it is proved that a part of the suit premises was not used then sec. 13 (1) (k) has no application to the case. In other words according to him non-user contemplated