( 1 ) THIS Revision Application is filed by the petitioners-original defendants 1 to 5 against the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated. The opponents-plaintiffs filed H. R. P. Suit No. 137 of 1973 in the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad against the petitioners and one S. D. Shah and Co. (defendant 6) to recover possession of the suit premises bearing Municipal Census No. 1956 situated opposite English Cinema, Khadia, Ahmedabad, inter alia on the ground that defendants 2 and 3 who were the lawful tenants of the suit property had illegally and unlawfully sub-let a portion thereof to defendants 4 to 6. It was also alleged that defendants 2 and 3 were in arrears of rent from 1/10/1971, and they had committed breach of terms of tenancy. On those allegations, the tenancy of the defendants was terminated by a registered notice and they were called upon to vacate the premises. Since they did not comply with the notice, a suit came to be filed for possession of the suit property.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 2, 3 and 4 appeared and filed joint written statement at exh. 14, contending that notice to vacate the premises was not legal and valid. They denied that they were in arrears of rent. Defendants 2 and 3 denied that they had unlawfully sub-let or transferred the suit premises or any part thereof to anyone as alleged by the plaintiffs. They also denied having committed breach of terms of tenancy and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant 6, though served, did not appear.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed necessary issues at Exhibit 34 and after hearing the parties, it held the suit notice to be legal and valid. The Court, further held that defendants 2 and 3 had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to defendants 4 to 6. The plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to a decree for possession against the defendants. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit for possession on the ground of breach of terms of tenancy, as well as on the ground of arrears of rent. In accordance with the findings recorded by the trial Court, a decree of eviction was passed against the defendants on February 21, 1977.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the decree of eviction, defendants 1 to 5 preferred civil Appeal No. 197 of 1977 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes court at Ahmedabad. The Appellate Court, though confirmed the decree of eviction passed against them on the ground of sub-letting by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of defendant 6, it set aside the finding recorded by the trial court about sub-letting of the suit premises to defendants 4 and 5. According to the Appellate Court, defendants 2 and 3 were partners and in that capacity, they had executed a rent note (Exhibit 39 ). In 1969, defendants 4 and 5 were taken as partners and hence, according to the Appellate Court, it could not be said that defendants 2 and 3 had sub-let part of the premises to defendants 4 and 5. Therefore, to that extent, the finding recorded by the trial Court was set aside. But at the same time, the Appellate Court held that defendant 6 was a stranger and when possession was parted in favour of defendant 6 by defendants 2 and 3, it was a case of sub-letting. Accordingly, the decree was confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is this decree which is challenged in the present Civil Revision Application.

( 6 ) MR. S. N. Soparkar, for Mr. S. B. Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the decree of eviction passed by the Courts below against the petitioners on the ground of sub-letting by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of defendant 6 was illegal and contrary to law. He submitted that necessary ingredients of exclusive possession and payment of rent as required to be established in case of sub-tenancy were not proved and, therefore, the decree requires to be set aside by this Court. He f