JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---The tenant original defendant No. 1 has challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, dated September 1973 in Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1972, confirming the order passed by the trial Court on August 21, 1972, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiffs suit against the defendants was filed on the allegation that the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his personal use and occupation and that defendant No. 1 has sub-let those premises to defendant No. 2. Defendants resisted the said suit contending that the plaintiff does not require the suit premises for bona fide use and occupation and that defendant No. 1 had not sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2. So far as the plaintiffs bona fide requirement of use and occupation of the premises is concerned, both the courts below have held that the plaintiff failed to prove the said ground. However, it is held that defendant No. 1, had sub-let the premises to defendant No. 2, and therefore, order of eviction was passed against the defendants in respect of one room on the ground-floor of the back portion of House No. 638, Sadashio Peth, Poona. The learned District Judge held as under : "Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that defendant No. 2 was inducted in the suit premises at the instance of the plaintiff." Thus, the defence of defendant No. 1 was rejected. However, it is further held by the learned District Judge that "it is true that the plaintiffs has no evidence whether defendant No. 1 is accepting rent from defendant No. 2. The question of payment of rent cannot be proved by the plaintiff. Plaintiffs-landlord can only say that along with the tenant some other person is residing. In the instant case defendant No. 2 has got four daughters and wife. There are thus 6 members in his family. He is residing in one room along with defendant No. 1. It would thus be seen that major portion of the room is being utilised by defendant No. 2. Reasonable inference would be drawn that he would not be allowed to use the premises or the major portion of the premises by defendant No. 1 gratis". Mr. He is residing in one room along with defendant No. 1. It would thus be seen that major portion of the room is being utilised by defendant No. 2. Reasonable inference would be drawn that he would not be allowed to use the premises or the major portion of the premises by defendant No. 1 gratis". Mr. Agarwal submitted that the plaintiff has got to prove under section 13(1)(e) that defendant No. 1 has unlawfully sub-let the premises. Sub-letting means treating tenancy in favour of another man. If there is a plea of sub-tenancy then the plaintiff must prove by cogent and reliable evidence that the right of enjoyment of the room was transferred to another person, viz. defendant No. 2, for a consideration. In the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever, that defendant No. 1 has transferred the right of enjoyment of the said room in favour of defendant No. 2. What is held by the Appellate Court is that defendant No. 2 resides along with defendant No. 1 with his family members. The plaintiff was not able to prove any consideration whatsoever for the transfer of right of enjoyment of the said room. The Appellate Court presumed that defendant No. 1 must be getting some rent and defendant No. 1 must not have allowed defendant No. 2 to enjoy the room for gratis. That is a finding based upon presumption and assumptions. Under the provisions of section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, it is necessary that the plaintiff should prove a transfer of possession or transfer of right of enjoyment in favour of the other exclusively for consideration and if the plaintiff fails to prove these ingredients of the definition of tenancy as given section 5(11) of the Bombay Rent Act, he cannot succeed in this case. Both the courts below have recorded a finding that defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 resided together in the suit premises and from this an inference is drawn that it amounted to illegal sub-letting. Now, two persons may live together for different purposes and still there cannot be any legal relationship such as licensor and licensee and a tenant and landlord. There may be cases where a tenant may accommodate his friend without any consideration for some time. Such kind of instances are not lacking. Now, two persons may live together for different purposes and still there cannot be any legal relationship such as licensor and licensee and a tenant and landlord. There may be cases where a tenant may accommodate his friend without any consideration for some time. Such kind of instances are not lacking. Both the courts below committed an error in drawing an inference from the mere circumstances that defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are residing together in one room, and it necessarily amounting to illegal sub-letting or the relationship of a landlord and tenant. Mr. Agarwal is right in submitting that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below if accepted cannot be said to have proved a case illegal sub-letting. In the circumstances of the case, it must be held that the plaintiff has failed to prove sub-tenancy as alleged by him and that no material is brought on record for recording a finding that there was an agreement between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 for a consideration allowing defendant No. 2 to enjoy the suit room and thus I find that no such finding is recorded by the lower courts. 3. In the result, the Order passed by the learned District Judge, Poona on September 7, 1973 in the Civil Appeal No. 890 of 1972, confirming the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 723 of 1972 by the Additional Judge of the Small Causes Court, Poona is set aside and the plaintiffs suit is dismissed. 4. In the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. -----