H. L. GOKHALE, J. ( 1 ) ). The present petitioners are the heirs of one Girdharlal Bhothabhai who has filed this Revision application against the judgment and decree of the Joint District Judge Rajkot dated 26-9-1980 in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1979 whereby the learned Joint District Judge has reversed the decision dated 18-6-1979 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vankaner in Regular Civil Suit No. 242 of 1977. This Girdharlal owned a certain property situated at Mochi Bazar in Rajkot and a shop therein had been let out to the respondent. The Civil Revision Application arises out of the aforesaid proceedings filed by the said Girdharlal under the provisions of Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Rent Act for the sake of brevity ). Girdharlal the original plaintiff-petitioner died during the course of this revision application No. 13-2-1991 and the same is prosecuted by his heirs who have come on record. ( 2 ) ). The facts leading to this proceeding are as follows : the original petitioner-landlord let out the shop premises in dispute to the respondent `damumal Bhojumal on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. 00 by a rent note dated 12th note dated 12th April 1959. It is the case of the petitioner that though the shop premises were so let out to the respondent subsequently i. e. from 1970 onwards the respondent has unlawfully sublet the premises or assigned or transferred his interest therein to one Punjumal Ramchand. The petitioner therefore served an advocates notice dated 27-1-1977 on the respondent-tenant terminating the tenancy and asking him to hand over the possession. The notice stated that the respondent was in arrears of rent and also that the respondent had unlawfully sublet/transferred/assigned the shop premises. The notice however did not state as to whom the said premises were unlawfully sublet / transferred / assigned or since when. The notice was immediately replied by the respondent-defendant on 8-2-1977 wherein it was stated that the premises were let out to `damumal Bhojumal and Damumal Bhojumal is a Hindu Undivided Family business. The said reply was given by an Advocate on behalf of his client Punjumal Ramchand who claimed to be the owner of the shop which was being run in the name of `damumal Bhojumal. The said reply was given by an Advocate on behalf of his client Punjumal Ramchand who claimed to be the owner of the shop which was being run in the name of `damumal Bhojumal. In reply it was stated that there is no single person by name of Damumal Bhojumal. The reply further stated that the shop was owned by Punjumal Ramchand and that it was being run by him from the beginning and that he was paying the rent. The reply further stated that Damumal and Bhojumal were two different persons who are members of the Hindu Undivided Family and the business of the said family was being run in their name that is in the name of `damumal Bhojumal. The reply naturally denied that the premises were unlawfully sublet / transferred / assigned. It was also denied that there were any arrears of rent. ( 3 ) ). In view of this reply the original petitioner filed aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 242/77 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vankaner District Rajkot seeking possession of the premises under the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act regarding arrears of rent and Section 13 (1) (e) thereof regarding unlawful subletting / transferring / assignment of the Bombay Rent Act. In the plaint however it has not been stated by the petitioner plaintiff as to whom the premises were so sublet / transferred / assigned. The respondent-defendant however filed a written statement denying the allegations on the same lines as that of the reply to the quit notice. ( 4 ) ). When the trial proceeded the original petitioner-plaintiff examined only one witness that is himself. On behalf of the respondent-defendant two persons were examined that is Damumal Tejumal and Punjumal Ramchand. Before the said evidence was concluded the original petitioner-plaintiff got produced in court on 3-3-1979 eight documents by issuing a court notice to the Shops and Establishment Inspector of the Rajkot Municipality. The document marked at Sr. No. 44/8 is a letter/application dated 7-12-1970. By a separate application dated 23-4-1979 the Advocate of the original petitioner produce a certified true copy of the Registration Certificate of the shop under dispute which is in Form `c. The said certificate is dated 16-12-1970. The application dated 7 is written in Gujarati. Therebelow appears a signature in Sindhi (in Arabic script) signed `damumal Bhojumal. By a separate application dated 23-4-1979 the Advocate of the original petitioner produce a certified true copy of the Registration Certificate of the shop under dispute which is in Form `c. The said certificate is dated 16-12-1970. The application dated 7 is written in Gujarati. Therebelow appears a signature in Sindhi (in Arabic script) signed `damumal Bhojumal. The said application addressed to the authorities concerned states that the said shop has been sold and the shop certificate in the name of Damumal Bhojumal be cancelled. The Shops and Establishment Certificate dated 16-12-1970 shows the name of the establishment as `param Vivekanand Pan House. The name of the owner is shown as Punjumal Ramchand. The second witness on behalf of the respondent-defendant viz. Punjumal Ramchand was asked in the cross-examination with respect to the application dated 7-12-1970 as to whether he had signed the same and he denied having given the said application. The plaintiff-petitioner also relied upon the rent note dated 12th April 1959 which described `damumal Bhojumal as under : the one giving writing : Shri Damumal Bhojumal by religion Hindu Sindhi Lohana by caste aged 22 occupation : Trade residing at Rajkot. ( 5 ) ). The learned trial Judge took the view that a breach of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act had been committed. He however held that the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12 (3) (b) of the said Act was not established. He therefore decreed original petitioners suit for possession. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the respondent-defendant carried the said matter in appeal through the above referred Civil Appeal No. 65/1979 to the Court of Joint District Judge Rajkot. The petitioner-plaintiff filed cross objections with respect to the finding under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned Joint District Judge heard the parties and came to the conclusion that right from the beginning the business was being run in the name of `damumal Bhojumal which was a Hindu Undivided Family business and that being the position it cannot be said that there was any unlawful subleting / transfer / assignment particularly when one of its members was claimed to be running the same. He therefore allowed the said appeal. With respect to the submission regarding arrears of rent the learned District Judge confirmed the finding of the trial Court. He therefore allowed the said appeal. With respect to the submission regarding arrears of rent the learned District Judge confirmed the finding of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the original petitioner has filed the present civil revision application. ( 6 ) ). I have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties and they have also taken me through the entire record. The only submissison pressed before me was that the Joint District Judge materially erred in law and on facts in holding that there was no breach of the provisions of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. The contention regarding arrears of rent is not pressed. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted by their counsel Mrs. Yagnik that the rent note at its beginning has described the one executing the rent note as an individual aged 22 giving his particulars. It was therefore submitted that the rent note will lead to a construction that it was an individual by name Damumal Bhojumal who had approached the petitioner for the tenancy for his personal requirement. She also laid emphasis on the Shops and Establishment Certificate of the year 1970 wherein the name of Punjumal Ramchand had come to be entered as the `employer of the shop. She therefore submitted that this indicated that the premises had been unlawfully sublet / transferred / assigned without reference to the landlord. ( 7 ) ). The original rent note has been shown to me. The rent note is executed in Gujarati however the signature thereunder has been affixed in Sindhi (in Arabic script) which when translated reads as follows : for `damumal Bhojumal sd/ (Bhojumal Rattumal) this being the position as far as respondent-defendant is concerned the signature was affixed on behalf of `damumal Bhojumal by one Bhojumal Rattumal. It was pointed out by Shri Mahul Shah learned Counsel for the respondent that right from the beginning Punjumal Ramchand was running the business which fact is not disputed by the petitioner-plaintiff. However relying on the entry in the Shops and Establishment Certificate it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff that whereas initially this Punjumal was sitting in the shop as an `employee subsequently from 1970 he was sitting as an `employer. However relying on the entry in the Shops and Establishment Certificate it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff that whereas initially this Punjumal was sitting in the shop as an `employee subsequently from 1970 he was sitting as an `employer. Two Shops and Establishment applications in Forms `d and `a respectively issued by the Rajkot Municipal authorities under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act 1948 were produced by the petitioner on record of the trial Court. They were marked as Exhs. 55 and 56. The Exh. 55 is the Shops and Establishment application in Form `d dated 23-12-1969 and Exh. 56 is the Shops and Establishment Application in Form `a dated 25th September 1962. Both these applications gave the `name employer as Damumal Bhojumal in column No. 4 The heading of column No. 10 in both these forms reads as follows : the names of members of employers family employed in the establishment exh. 55 the name of Damumal Bhojumal appears in column No. 10 whereas in Exh. 56 two names appear in column No. 10 Punjumal Ramchand and Jamnadas. It was therefore submitted by Mrs. Yagnik on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff that as per these two applications particularly Exhibit 56 the name of Punjumal Ramchand was shown as a member of employers family working in the establishment in the year 1962 whereas in the certified true copy of the Shops and Establishment certificate in Form `c dated 16-12-1970 produced on behalf of the petitioners the name of Punjumal Ramchand was shown as an employer. She therefore submitted that Punjumal Ramchand was initially an employee though from 1970 onwards he should be construed as having become the owner. ( 8 ) ). In this connection it must be noted that the aforesaid documents were issued under the provisions of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 The said Act is principally concerning the regulation of the conditions of work and employment in shops commercial establishments residential hotels etc. The Act provides for regulation of various entitles under the said Act and for regulation of hours of work holidays payments health and safety of the employees working thereunder. A machinery for that purpose is created under the said Act. Now if one looks at the relevant application of 1962 (Exh. The Act provides for regulation of various entitles under the said Act and for regulation of hours of work holidays payments health and safety of the employees working thereunder. A machinery for that purpose is created under the said Act. Now if one looks at the relevant application of 1962 (Exh. 55) it cannot be disputed that Punjumal Ramchand is described therein as a member of employers family though employed in the establishment. Besides it has been put to the original petitioner plaintiff in his cross-examination and he has stated as follows : I do not know whether Bhojumal Rattumal Damumal Tejumal and Punjumal Ramchand are members of Hindu Undivided Family. ( 9 ) ). On this background as far as the case of the respondent-defendant is concerned it was pointed out in their behalf that the rent note has been executed on its behalf by a member of the Hindu Undivided Family carrying on its business in the name of `damumal Bhojumal and it is immaterial as to how at the beginning of the rent note the landlord has written the description of the individual who signed the rent note on behalf of the tenant. What is material is to see on whose behalf it is signed. It is executed for `damumal Bhojumal. There is no such one individual by name `damumal Bhojumal but it is Hindu Undivided Family business. Besides since a dispute has arisen as to whom the premises have been let out whether to an individual or to a Hindu Undivided Family business it is also material to see from their conduct as to how the parties have understood the relationship as created between whom and how they have acted over the years after relationship of landlord and tenant was created. After the premises were taken on tenancy the same have been used for the Hindu Undivided Family Business `damumal Bhojumal right from the beginning Althrough (sic.) out Punjumal Ramchand has been carrying on the business on behalf of the tenant and paying rent from the income of the business to the landlord. The landlord has not raised any objection whatsoever at any point of time to his functioning in this manner. The landlord has not raised any objection whatsoever at any point of time to his functioning in this manner. In view of this the landlord cannot be permitted to take advantage of the description at the beginning of the rent note or the entries in the Shops and Establishment record and they do not carry their case any further. ( 10 ) ). In the reply to the notice of eviction a clear stand has been taken that there is no one individual by name `damumal Bhojumal but that `damumal Bhojumal constitutes a Hindu Undivided Family business. The original petitioner-plaintiff has not stated in the notice of eviction as to whom the premises have been so allegedly sublet/transferred/assigned when the notice was issued as late as on 27-1-1977. In the plaint also it is not stated that the premises have been so sublet/transferred/assigned to Punjumal Ramchand. It is only when Punjumal Ramchand was in the witness box that the plaintiff-petitioner got produced from the Rajkot municipality the record of the Shops and Establishment Department and in the cross-examination of Punjumal Ramchand it was pointed out to him that in view of the application dated 7-12-1970 a change had been effected in the registration certificate of the said establishment and the name of Punjumal Ramchand was brought in as the owner. Punjumal Ramchand has denied having executed the said application dated 7-12-1970 which is signed as `damumal Bhojumal. In any case the application to the Shops and Establishment authorities dated 25th September 1962 (Exh. 56) which shows the name of Punjumal Ramchand as an employee against column No. 10 of that application does not take away his status as a member of the employers family since the caption of column 10 against which his name appears therein reads names of members of employers family employed in the establishment. Thus even from this record of 1962 it cannot be denied that at that time also he was a member of employers family working in the shop. The respondent-defendant has all throughout contended that Punjumal Ramchand is functioning in the said shop right from the beginning. As against that much emphasis has been laid by Mrs. Yagnik on the aforesaid aspect that subsequently his name has been shown as the employer. The respondent-defendant has all throughout contended that Punjumal Ramchand is functioning in the said shop right from the beginning. As against that much emphasis has been laid by Mrs. Yagnik on the aforesaid aspect that subsequently his name has been shown as the employer. However as stated above whether an employers family member working in the said shop or otherwise the status of Punjumal Ramchand as a member of the Hindu Undivided Family cannot be destroyed and hence the mentioning of his name as `employer for the purpose of the records under the Shop and Establishment Act cannot be construed as amounting to unlawfully subletting the premises or assigning or transferring the interest therein. Besides it has been the consistent case of the respondent-defendant that Punjumal Ramchand is a member of the Hindu Undivided Family carrying on its business in the name of `damumal Bhojumal which fact has also been put to the original petitioner-plaintiff in his crossexamination. He has not been able to deny the same although he has stated that he is not aware of the same. In view of this factual position it is difficult to accept the submission of Mrs. Yagnik that there is an unlawful subletting / transfer / assignment. ( 11 ) ). Mr. Mehul Shah the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant has in his support relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Luhar Jagjivanbhai Ramjibhai and Others v. Mukundlal Pitambardas Shah (1987 (1) G. L. H. 395 ). In that case also the rent note was 45 executed in favour of a Hindu Undivided Family business and right from the time the rent note was executed the disputed occupant was in possession of the premises and the rent was paid through the income of the Hindu Undivided Family business. The court held that there was no element of subletting since no stranger had been inducted and the business was done by the members of the same family. The court held that there was no element of subletting since no stranger had been inducted and the business was done by the members of the same family. This Court rightly held in that matter as follows : the original business having been shown to be joint family business and the rent having been paid out of the funds of that business shows that the lease was for the benefit of the joint family and therefore there is no question of subletting or assignment amongst the members of the joint family or the persons carrying on the joint business. ( 12 ) ). In view of the above position it is clear that although the original plaintiff-petitioner tried to contend that there was unlawful subletting transferring / assignment way back in the year 1970 the quit notice was given as late as in January 1977. In the notice to quit it is not stated that the premises have been so sublet / transferred / assigned since 1970 or as to whom the premises have been so sublet / transferred / assignment unlawfully. In the plaint also it is not stated as to whom the premises have been so sublet / transferred / assigned and that too since when. The original petitioner-plaintiff examined himself in support of his case. In his deposition he has nowhere stated that the premises have been sublet/transferred/assigned unlawfully since 1970 As stated earlier it is only in the cross-examination of Punjumal Ramchand that the record has been brought from the Shops and Establishment Department of the Rajkot Municipality and the contention is sought to be substantiated by pointing out that whereas the application of 1962 in Form `a (Exh. 56) showed the name of Punjumal Ramchand as a member of employers family employed in the establishment the certified true copy of the Shops and Establishment Certificate of 1970 in Form `c showed the name of Punjumal Ramchand as `employer. This cannot advance the case of the petitioner because as pointed out earlier the 1962 document also showed the name of Punjumal Ramchand as a `member of employers family though working in the same shop. Besides the respondents have taken a consistent stand right from the reply to the quit notice that theirs was a Hindu Undivided Family business. They have put the same case to the original plaintiff-petitioner while in witness box. Besides the respondents have taken a consistent stand right from the reply to the quit notice that theirs was a Hindu Undivided Family business. They have put the same case to the original plaintiff-petitioner while in witness box. The signature under the original rent note is also signed as `for Damumal Bhojumal which is the name of the Hindu Undivided Family business and not of any single individual. It is seen in the record of the Shops and Establishment Department produced before the Court that the name of the Shop all throughout continued as `param Vivekanand Pan House. It is also not disputed that Punjumal Ramchand has been running the business right from the beginning and paying the rent. This being the position merely because his name is shown earlier as a member of employers family working in the shop and subsequently as the employer himself cannot lead to any such inference sought to be advanced by the petitioner-plaintiff that there is unlawful subletting/transfer/assignment. This is because Punjumal Ramchand was althrough out a member of the Hindu Undivided Family running the business in the name of `damumal Bhojumal and no stranger. That being the position the said ground cannot be sustained. It will have to be held that the premises were taken on tenancy for the Hindu Undivided Family business and they continued to be so used for the said family business by a member of the said family. ( 13 ) ). Besides Damumal had entered the witness box in defence. In his cross-examination he maintained that his fathers name was Tejanmal and not Bhojumal. He has also denied that the suit shop was taken on rent for his personal use. The learned Joint District Judge has therefore rightly commented in his judgment as follows : the plaintiff could have adduced independent corroborative evidence to show that the defendant who posed himself as Damumal Tejanmal is in fact Damumal Bhojumal and that his fathers name is Bhojumal and not Tejanmal. But no such evidence is adduced by the plaintiff. As against this on behalf of the defendant the defendant has also examined his cousin Punjumal Ramchand who has deposed that Damumal is his elder cousin and that his fathers name is Tejanmal. He says that Tejanmal is not alive and that his widow Tirathbai has remarried with his father and so Tirathbai was his mother. As against this on behalf of the defendant the defendant has also examined his cousin Punjumal Ramchand who has deposed that Damumal is his elder cousin and that his fathers name is Tejanmal. He says that Tejanmal is not alive and that his widow Tirathbai has remarried with his father and so Tirathbai was his mother. Bhojumal Uttamal is his uncle being the elder brother of his father Ramchand and that he is running the shop in the name of Damumal Bhojumal and that he was aged about 17 to 18 years when these shop premises were taken on lease and that from very beginning he is running this business and attending the shop and that he is doing this business on behalf of other members of his family who are residing under the common roof. ( 14 ) ). This being the position since Punjumal Ramchand has been running the business right from the beginning and paying the rent on behalf of the Hindu Undivided Family business the ground of unlawful subletting / transferring / assigning cannot be sustained. It cannot therefore be said that the Joint District Judge has exercised any jurisdiction not vested in him by law or failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or acted illegally or with material irregularity to attract the provisions of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. The finding of the appellate Court is therefore confirmed and the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff consequently stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .