( 1 ) THIS is a revision application filed under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Rent Act ). The respondent who is the landlady of the premises, which is a shop, sued the petitioners for a decree for possession of the suit premises on the ground that petitioner No. 1 - the tenant - has unlawfully sub-let, assigned or transferred the suit premises to the other petitioners, i. e. , petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The ground on which the respondent claimed the decree for possession of the suit premises is covered by Sec. 13 (l) (e) of the Rent Act.

( 2 ) IN the plaint, the respondent averred that the suit shop was given to petitioner No. 1 for running his ownership business in grocery therein at a monthly rent of Rs. 30. 00 Plus Municipal Tax, other Cess, etc. The respondent, in the plaint averred that the suit shop was given to petitioner no. 1 only for the purpose of running his ownership business and he had no right to transfer the shop to anyone. However, petitioner No. 1 has, without any right, transferred the suit shop to petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 quite illegally. The respondent thereafter, issued to the petitioners, a notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the-possession of the suit premises, and thereafter she filed the suit for a decree for possession of the suit premises.

( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit for possession. The petitioners filed an appeal before the appellate Court. Pending the appeal, the respondent amended the plaint. The petitioners also made a grievance before the appellate Court that the trial Court had not properly considered their pleading about the effect of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959 (for short the Ordinance ). The appellate Court, therefore, raised additional issues and remitted the matter to the trial Court for recording and certifying the findings on those issues after giving the parties proper opportunity. Accordingly the trial Court gave fresh opportunity to the parties of leading further evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the trial Court certified its findings once again against the petitioners on the question of sub-letting. The appellate Court, after appreciating the entire evidentiary material, confirmed the decree for possession, passed by the trial Court, against the petitioners. Hence the petitioners have filed the present revision application.

( 4 ) MR. Pandya, learned Advocate for the petitioners raised three contentions before me. Firstly, according to Mr. Pandya, petitioner No. 1 has not parted with the legal possession of the premises in favour of petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and therefore, there is no question of subletting. Secondly, accordingly to Mr. Pandya, even if it is assumed that petitioner No. 1 has parted with legal possession of the suit premises in favour of petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4, there is no evidence that such parting of legal possession by petitioner No. 1 in favour of other petitioners was for consideration. Therefore also, there is no question of sub-letting as is forbidden by Sec. 15 of the Rent Act and would furnish a ground contemplated by Sec. 13 (l) (e) of the Rent Act for evicting the tenant from the premises. Thirdly, accordingly to Mr. Pandya, as the sub-letting complained of by the respondent came into existence prior to the coming into effect of the Ordinance, under Sec. 15 (2) of the Rent Act, such a sub-letting has become legal and regularised. Therefore also, no decree for eviction could have been passed against the petitioners on the ground contemplated by Sec. 13 (l) (e) of the Rent Act.

( 5 ) THE pleadings as they stand, after their amendments, clearly spell out the case of the respondent in the plaint about the allegation that in any view of the matter, pending the suit, petitioner No. 1 has sub-let the suit shop to petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4, or petitioner No. 1 has, in any oth