( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 at the instance of the original defendants who were sued by the respondent-plaintiff landlord before the Rent Court under Sec. 28 of the said Act, for a decree of possession against them.

( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff landlord had sued the defendants for a decree of eviction on three grounds, namely, that the first defendant who was the tenant had illegally sublet the suit premises to defendant No. 2 who was the sub-tenant, that the first defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months on the date of the suit notice and had not paid up the arrears within 30 days of the service of the suit notice, and that the landlord required the suit premises for his bonafide and reasonable use.

( 3 ) THE last ground viz. the landlords bonafide requirement for personal use was not pressed before the Trial Court. However, on the other two issues the Trial Court, after framing appropriate issues and taking into consideration the totality of the evidence led by the parties before it, decreed the suit of the landlord on the ground that the first defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months and he had not paid up the arrears within 30 days of the service of the suit notice, and that the first defendant-tenant had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to his sub-tenant viz. the second defendant. The Trial Court, therefore, passed a decree of eviction against the defendants.

( 4 ) THE two defendants thereupon preferred an appeal under Sec. 29 of the Rent Act, which came to be dismissed by judgment and order of the lower Appellate Court, confirming the decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court on the two grounds mentioned hereinabove.

( 5 ) AS aforesaid, this is a revision under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act at the instance of the original defendants.

( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding with the merits of the matter it would be pertinent to bear in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court while dealing with the revisions arising under Sec. 29 (2) of the said Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Valmik himatlal and Ors. vs. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai [1998 (2) GLH 736 = AIR 1998 SC 3325], while approving and reiterating the principles laid down in its earlier decision in the case of Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyad Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri [air 1987 SC 1782], held that High Court cannot function as a Court of appeal, cannot reappreciate the evidence on record, cannot discard concurrent findings of fact based on evidence recorded by the Courts below, and cannot interfere on grounds of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence, and cannot interfere, except in cases where conclusions drawn by the Courts below are on the basis of no evidence at all, or are perverse. A different interpretation on facts is also not possible merely because another view on the same set of facts may just be possible.

( 7 ) THE tenanted premises consists of ground floor and first floor together with terrace on the said first floor. The landlord alleged that this composite property was let out to the first defendant as a tenant. On the other hand, the defendants contended in the suit that the first defendant was tenant of the first floor, whereas the second defendant was an independent tenant on the ground floor. It is pertinent to note that both the defendants have filed a common written statement at Exh. 31.

( 8 ) SO far as the landlords claim that the first defendant-tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months on the date of the suit notice and has not paid up the dues within 30 days of the service of the suit notice is concerned, the landlord has examined himself at Exh. 37, and the son of the plaintiff viz. Shantilal Gordhanbhai has also been examined at Exh. 60. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff-landlord and his two sons are partners in a common business and that the accounts of the busi