JUDGMENT : V. Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated the 16th December, 1965 in civil revision application No. 1168 of 1963. 2. This appellant was occupying three rooms in house No. 265, Sadasivpeth, Poona as a monthly tenant or respondent No. 1 on a rent of Rs. 14/- p.m. The respondent No. 1 brought the present suit on the ground that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent and that he had unlawfully sublet the premises and therefore granted a decree to respondent No. 1 for the eviction of the appellant. In an appeal filed by the appellant the Extra Assistant Judge held that the appellant was charging rent from the respondent No. 2 and so there was no proof that the premises were sublet to respondent No. 2. The Extra Assistant Judge therefore reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 preferred Civil Revision Application to the High Court. The High Court allowed the application and granted a decree to respondent No. 1 for eviction of the appellant from the demised premises. 3. After hearing the council for the parties we are satisfied that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge in the present case. It is well established that it is not open to the High Court to question findings of fact recorded be a subordinate court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . That section applies only to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, that is, regarding the irregular exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or the illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court and is not directed against conclusions of law or of fact in which questions of jurisdiction are not involved. The question involved in the present case namely whether the appellant had sublet the garage to respondent No. 2 as alleged by the respondent No. 1 is essentially a question of fact and the High Court had no jurisdiction to upset that finding. The question involved in the present case namely whether the appellant had sublet the garage to respondent No. 2 as alleged by the respondent No. 1 is essentially a question of fact and the High Court had no jurisdiction to upset that finding. It is of course true that a finding on a question of fact will be detective in law if there is no evidence to support that finding or if in reaching that finding the lower court misdirects itself in law. It is, however, not argued on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the finding of the lower court on the question of subletting initiated for these reasons. 4. Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 16th December, 1965 in Civil Revision Application No. 1168 of 1963 and restore the judgment of the Extra Assistant Judge dated the 27th March, 1963 in Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1963. We direct respondent No. 1 to pay half the costs of the appellant in this court. Appeal allowed.