Judgment :- 1. The point that has been stressed on behalf of the revision petitioners herein is that for about 18 years the landlord had been accepting the rent that had been sent by Money order by the sub-tenant who is the second respondent before the Rent Controller and as such now the respondent herein cannot be heard to say that the sub-tenancy had been properly appreciated and upheld by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. The point that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the concurrent finding that had been arrived at by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority can be disturbed under the provisions of S. 25 of the special enactment. It is seen that no material is available so as to disturb the said concurrent finding. There is absolutely no material on behalf of the revision petitioners to show that Ex.P18 series (the money order coupons) recognise the sub-tenancy. Such a kind of argument without proper evidence cannot in any way substantiate the point raised on behalf of the revision petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have properly arrived at a conclusion relating to this aspect, and that the fact that the second respondent had been sending the rent through Ex.P18 series disclosing his name as the sender in those money order coupons does not by itself confer the right that the second respondent should be held to have been recognised as a tenant by the landlady, the respondent herein. On a cartful and anxious consideration of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority did go through all the evidence advanced before it and it had all reasons to confirm the finding relating to the sub-tenancy that had been arrived at by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the confirmation by the learned Appellate Authority of the legal ground for eviction, viz. sub-tenancy has been established as seen from the clear finding regarding the point relating to that aspect framed by the Appellate Authority. There is absolutely no material available which warrants interference under S. 25 of the special enactment. There are no merits in this civil revision petition. Hence the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.