D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) LIST has been revised twice, none appeared for the respondents. As such, Shri BJ Shelat, learned counsel for the revisionist has been heard and the judgments of the courts below have been examined.

( 2 ) THE revisionist, landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-in-chief, respondent no. 1 and also the sub-tenants, respondent nos. 2 and 3 on various grounds. The first ground was that, the tenant was in arrears of rent exceeding six months. The second ground was that, the respondent no. 1, tenant had illegally sub-let the suit land to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 without his consent in writing. The third ground was that, the land in suit was reasonably and bonafidely required by the landlord, revisionist for his personal use. The next ground was that, the sub-tenants, respondent nos. 2 and 3 were creating nuisance on the suit land. Another ground was that, the tenant-in-chief, as well as, the sub-tenants are using the suit land for purpose which is contrary to the terms of contract between the tenant and the landlord contained in the rent note and there has been change of u/ser of the suit land.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the tenant-in-chief, respondent no. 1, denying that the rate of rent at Rs. 23=00 per month is the standard rent. According to him, Rs. 20=00 per month, which was the previous agreed rent should be the standard rent. The tenant-in-chief, denied that the suit land is reasonably and bonafidely required by the landlord for his personal use. Allegation of nuisance was also denied by him. He, however, admitted that the super-structure alongwith the suit land was let out by him to the defendant nos. 2 and 3, who are doing business in the super-structure and that these defendants did not pay any rent to the defendant no. 1.

( 4 ) THE suit was also resisted by the sub-tenants, defendant nos. 2 and 3, who are respondent nos. 2 and 3 in this revision. Their case was that, the defendant no. 1 is tenant of the suit land and that he had constructed super-structure thereon, which was let out to the defendant no. 2. In this way, allegation of illegal sub-letting has been denied by these defendants. They have contested the suit on other grounds adopting the stand of the defendant, respondent no. 1.

( 5 ) THE trial Court negatived all the contentions raised by the landlord, revisionist and accepted the defence version setup by the defendants, respondents. As such, the suit was dismissed.

( 6 ) AN appeal was preferred by the plaintiff, landlord, which was also dismissed. It is, therefore, this revision.

( 7 ) SHRI BJ Shelat, learned counsel for the revisionist has not challenged the findings of the two courts below that the suit land is not reasonably and bonafidely required by the landlord for his personal use. Likewise, he has not challenged the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding causing nuisance over the suit land. Since the tenant-in-chief paid the arrears of rent after receipt of notice in court, Shri Shelat did not press eviction on this ground in this revision.

( 8 ) HE has, however, assailed the concurrent findings of the two courts below on two counts. Firstly, he has argued that the finding that illegal sub-letting is not established, is perverse and contrary to law and is also based on ignoring the admission of the tenant-in-chief and is further based on inference of collusion between the tenant-in-chief and the sub-tenants without material on record. Thus, on the grounds of perversity and illegality in this finding, the learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that decree for eviction should have been passed by the two courts below.

( 9 ) THE second contention has been that, in any event, decree for eviction should have been passed by the courts below on the ground of change of user of the suit land.

( 10 ) IT is a case of concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below. However, if the revisional Court finds that the concurrent findings are perverse an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document