The court emphasized that its revisional power is limited and can only be exercised to ensure that the impugned decision is in accordance with the law. The finding about sub-tenancy was considered a finding of fact, and the court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decision.

ORDER :

J.N. Bhatt, J.

The petitioner is the original plaintiff and owner of the rented premises consisting of a shop situated neat Railway Station in village Ambaliasan in Mehsana Taluka wherein the respondent No. 1 original defendant No. 1 was the tenant as per the case of the landlord in Regular Civil Suit No. 24/75. The suit came to be filed on the ground of subletting by the original defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 and on the ground of nonpayment of rent.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and upon examination of the evidence on record, the learned Joint Civil Judge, (S.D.), Mehsana dismissed the suit on 18-9-79. The original plaintiff landlord appealed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 168/79, in the District Court at Mehsana which also came to be dismissed. Hence this revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act).

2. The only contention advanced in this revision is that the finding of the Courts below that there was no sub-tenancy by original defendant No. 1 tenant to original defendant No. 2 as confirmed in the appeal is perverse and illegal. This contention is not supported by the evidence on record.

3. The Courts below have recorded consistent and concurrent finding of facts. The revisional Court cannot re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence by exercising powers under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. It is true that under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, the High Court has wider jurisdiction than one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Code) However, its revisional power or jurisdiction can only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the impugned decision is in accordance with law or not. Even when two views are possible, this Court cannot substitute its views or finding in place of the finding of the Trial Court. The view taken by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court in the impugned decree is possible. Therefore, it is not permissible for this Court to take a different view and substitute its own finding. This proposition is very well established by the Apex Court in Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1782. It is also a settled proposition that finding about the sub-tenancy is also a finding of fact. Unless it is successfully shown from the record that the finding is vitiated by perversity, non-application of mind, misreading of evidence or by committing illegality, the revisional Court will be loathed to interfere with such a finding of fact. Apart from that, from the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that the view recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate court is justified. The contention of the present petitioner that the defendant No. 2 is not a direct tenant is not established.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the present revision is meritless. Therefore, the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below about the sub-tenancy is required to be confirmed. Consequently, this revision is dismissed. Rule discharged. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.