JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---This Special Civil Application has been filed by the original plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, on November 29, 1973. 2. The petitioners are the landlords and owners of the premises situated at "Sneha Sadan", 14/B, Mangalwadi Girgaum, Bombay-400 004. Respondent No. 1 R.N. Bhatt was originally a tenant in block No. 24 in the Sneha Sadan building as a monthly tenant of the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 parted with the possession of the suit premises in his possession unlawfully and inducted respondent No. 2 in the said premises. Respondent No. 1 was no longer in occupation of the suit premises, as he had acquired a suitable alternative accommodation at Vasant Mahal, Churchgate, Bombay. The petitioners also claimed possession of the suit premises as they reasonably and bona fide required the same for their personal use and occupation. The petitioners contended that respondent No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to respondent No. 2, and therefore, the tenancy of respondent No. 1 was terminated by a notice to quit dated October 16, 1962, and thereafter, a suit for eviction against the respondents was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. 3. Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte throughout the proceedings, viz., in the trial Court, Appellate Court, as well as in this Court. Respondent No. 2, contested the proceedings contending, inter alia that the suit premises were let out to him by respondent No. 1 before May 21, 1959, and therefore, he was a lawful sub-tenant of the suit premises. He also denied that the petitioners required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for their use and occupation. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues recorded the evidence, and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 was not inducted on the suit premises as sub-tenant on or before May 25, 1959. Respondent No. 2 feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. The Appellate court confirmed the finding that the petitioners do not require the suit premises bona fide and reasonably. Respondent No. 2 feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. The Appellate court confirmed the finding that the petitioners do not require the suit premises bona fide and reasonably. The Appellate Court was pleased to reverse the finding recorded by the trial Court on the point of actual subletting by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2. On the appreciation of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court held that the evidence shows that the first respondent obtained possession of Vasant Mahal flat in any case prior to May 8, 1959. It is further observed that, considering the evidence as a whole, and particularly the irresistible inference arising from the post-cards (Exhibit 12), it is held that the sub-tenancy of the second defendant-respondent No. 2 herein commenced prior to May 21, 1959. This being a question of fact cannot be interfered with while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. This is purely a question of fact, as to whether respondent No. 2 was inducted as a sub-tenant on or before May 21, 1959, and hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to disturb that finding recorded by the Appellate Court on the appreciation of evidence on record. 5. Mr. Abhyankar, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the finding recorded by the Appellate Court, is perverse. He submitted that there is no legal evidence on record to come to the conclusion on that respondent No. 2 was inducted on the suit premises before May 21, 1959. There is no substance in this contention. I have carefully considered the reasons given in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has considered the legal evidence on the record and recorded a finding as stated above. 6. For the reasons stated above, this Special Civil Application will have be dismissed. 7. In the result, rule is discharged with costs. -----