J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners filed HRP Suit No. 2157 of 1972 against the respondents in the Small Causes Court Ahmedabad for the recovery of demise premises contending that tenants have committed breach of the terms of tenancy and that they have unlawfully sub-lot part of the demise premises to other sub-tenants and they are profiteering. Petitioners are thus the original plaintiff and the owners of one open land bearing Survey No. 70/a/1 corresponding to final plot No. 443 situated in village Acher Sabarmati Ward Ahmedabad District (Rural) and the respondents are the original defendants-tenants. Parties for the sake of convenience are hereinafter referred to as landlords and tenants. ( 2 ) THE suit premises has been let to the tenants at a monthly rent of Rs. 275 plus taxes. The landlords inter alia contended in the suit that suit premises were given to the tenants to carry on the business. However they have Sub let the part of the suit premises to various tenants in contravention of the terms of the tenancy. It is also the case of the landlords that the tenants during the pendency of the suit and appeal have induced 6 to 7 more persons in the demise land and they are charging rent from them and making huge profit. The tenants appeared and resisted the suit for recovery of the demise premises. They denied the allegation of contravention of the terms of tenancy and i. e. sub-tenancy and also the allegation of arrears of rent. The defendants case was that agreed rent is excessive and therefore the standard rent should be fixed. The defandant No. 2 in his written statement also contended that he and defendant No. 1 had taken the demise land on lease in partnership. He is separated from the partnership business on 31. 1. 1972 and all liabilities concerning the suit land are accepted by the defendant No. 1 and he had informed the plaintiff regarding that under letter dated 5. 2 His contention was he should not have been impleaded as a party since he is no more interested in the suit land. ( 3 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parties issues were raised by the Trial Court. On facts and circumstances and the evidence on record Trial Court found that defendants are in arrears of rent. ( 3 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parties issues were raised by the Trial Court. On facts and circumstances and the evidence on record Trial Court found that defendants are in arrears of rent. Though standard rent was fixed the defendants are not entitled to get the time for payment of arrears of rent as they have committed breach of the terms of tenancy. It also found that the defendants have made construction of permanent nature in the suit land in contravention of the terms of tenancy. Trial Court also held that defendants have sub-let the suit land unlawfully and plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover the possessions from the defendants. The standard rent came to be fixed at Rs. 275 plus municipal taxes and full education case. ( 4 ) THE original defendants No. 1 tenant filed Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1977 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal reversing the decree of eviction on 11. 3. 1981. Hence this revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 1947 (Bombay Rent Act ). The Appellate Bench found the following: (1) That the Trial Court has committed error in not granting further time to the defendant tenant to deposit the arrears of rent after fixing the standard rent; (2) That the trial Cow: has committed error in holding that defendant No. 1 is a tenant in arrears; (3) That the Trial Court erred in holding that the defendant has made permanent construction without written consent and thereby committed breach of tenancy; (4) That the finding of the Trial Court that the defendant No. 1 has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises is erroneous wrong and illegal. ( 5 ) AFTER having examined the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record this Court is satisfied that the impugned judgment and decree recorded by the Appellate Bench is justified. Ld. Advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material which would warrant the interference of this Court. The scope of the revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act though little more than revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code it cannot be converted into an appeal. There is always a distinction between an appeal and a revision. The scope of the revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act though little more than revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code it cannot be converted into an appeal. There is always a distinction between an appeal and a revision. ( 6 ) THE findings of the Appellate Bench that the landlords claim for possession on the ground of arrears of rent permanent construction without permission and unlawful sub-letting are not proved. The Trial Court had decided all the three points in favour of the landlords. Trial Court passed the decree for ejactment on all the three grounds. The assessment of the evidence and the appreciation of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Act made by the Appellate Bench while quashing the ment decree of the Trial Court are fully justified. ( 7 ) THE Trial Court had committed serious error in not granting time to deposit the arrears of rent after fixing the standard rent during the course of the proceedings. It is a settled proposition of law that in order to enable to earn the protection of Section 12 (3) (b) the court is obliged to give time after fixing the standard rent to the tenant. The Trial Court refused to grant time to the tenant only on the ground that he had committed breach of the terms of tenancy by raising permanent construction. The view of the Trial Court on this point is rightly quashed and set aside by the Appellate Bench in view of the following;1 The facts and circumstances proved that the tenant is also entitled to protection of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore the Appellate Court rightly rejected the claim of the landlords for ejactment decree on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act;2 The appreciation of the evidence on the point of permanent construction made by the tenant in the appeal by the Appellate Bench is also fully justified. In the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record landlords are not entitled to eviction decree on the ground of permanent construction and the view of the Appellate Bench on this ground is required to be upheld. 3 In so or as the question of sub-tenancy is concerned the Appellate Bench has assigned reasons while reversing the decree of the Trial Court. 3 In so or as the question of sub-tenancy is concerned the Appellate Bench has assigned reasons while reversing the decree of the Trial Court. In the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record and the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act the Trial Court had committed serious error in passing ejactment decree and the Appellate Bench has rightly quashed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court on this score and it is required to be upheld. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and the circumstances and the evidence on record while perusing the latest proposition of law under the Bombay Rent Act petitioners who are the original landlords are not entitled to ejactment decree on any one of the grounds. Therefore the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench and challenged before this Court in this revision are quite proper and justified. No reasonable ground or any material worth the candle is pointed out which would warrant the interference of this Court in this Revision with the impugned judgment and decree. ( 9 ) IN the result the present revision is without any substance and is required to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed having regard to the circumstances with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Revision Dismissed. .