( 1 ) ). Should the proof of monetary consideration received by tenant from his subtenant be a sine qua non for an ejectment decree or even in absence thereof an eviction decree could be legally recorded against a tenant who has parted with exclusive possession of the demise premises with no animus to return to use the premises or has lost control over it in view of the statutory expression that the tenant has since coming into operation of this act unlawfully sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein is the sole but substantial question requiring judicial examination investigation and adjudication in this Revision Application filed by an unsuccessful tenant by invoking the powers of the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Bombay Rent Act ).

( 2 ) ). The petitioners are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 104/77 for eviction against the defendants on two grounds The plaintiff is the owner of the immovable property known as Kirtikunj situated near ST bus station at Modasa wherein there were 37 rooms out of which the roon Nos. 6 and 12 (interlinked) were rented to petitioner No. 1-original defendant No. 1 by virtue of a rent note Ex. 33 dated 25 on monthly rent of Rs. 30. 00 which is hereinafter referred to as the demise premises Thus the respondent-original plaintiff is the landlord and petitioner No. 1 is the original defendant No. 1 tenant of the demise premises. Petitioner No. 2 is the original defendant No. 2 who is the brother of the tenant and who is alleged to be the subtenant. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the sake of brevity and convenience.

( 3 ) ). The plaintiff by filing the aforesaid suit for eviction inter alia contended that defendant No. 1 has sublet transferred or assigned his interest in the demise premises to his brother defendant No. 2 and that the tenant has committed breach of the terms and conditions of rent note. He also alleged that the tenant has made permanent construction contrary to the term of the rent note as well as against the provisions of Bombay Rent Act. Thus on the ground of subletting transfer or assignment under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act and also on the ground of permanent construction under Section 13 the suit came to be filed.

( 4 ) ). Both the defendants appeared and resisted the suit by filing composite written statement Ex. 11 According to the case of the defendants defendant No. 1 tenant on vacating the demise premises twelve to fifteen months prior to the filing of the suit and shifting to a residential property purchased by him from Gujarat Housing Board the defendant No. 2 who was along with him from the beginning was accepted by the plaintiff-landlord as his tenant. The allegation of permanent construction in the demise premise was also denied. In view of the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parties issues came to be raised at Ex. 15 by the Trial Court and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and evidence the Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff-landlord is entitled to eviction on both the grounds.

( 5 ) ). The defendants challenged the judgment and decree dated 18-10-80 passed by the Civil Judge (J. D.) Modasa in Regular Civil Suit No. 104/77 by filing Civil Appeal No. 29/80 in the District Court Sabarkantha at Himatnagar. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree on the ground of Section 13 (1) (e) and reversed the decree on the ground of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore the original defendants have now come before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the decree confirmed by the Appellate Court under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act by filing this revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 6 ) ).