M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the heir and legal representative of the deceased petitioner-original plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. The parties are accordingly referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant in this judgment. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 28 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) morbi for obtaining possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4,370/- on various grounds inter-alia that the suit premises were let for residential purpose, but the defendant converted the use thereof into non-residence, that the defendant without the. plaintiffs consent given in writing erected on the premises permanent structure, that the defendant unlawfully sub-let and/or assigned or transferred the suit premises or part thereof, that in the alternative after the date of the commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1973 has unlawfully given on licence the suit premises or part thereof to some other persons and that the defendant was a tenant in arrears of rent for more than six months. ( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit on various grounds inter-alia on the ground that the plaintiffs suit was barred by the principle of delay, laches and acquiescence and that the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 60/- p. m. and not Rs. 100/- p. m. as alleged by the plaintiff. According to the defendant rent was tendered by money order, but the same was refused and, therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant was not ready and willing to pay the rent that fell due. ( 4 ) THE trial Court framed various issues arising from the pleadings and negativing the case of the plaintiff on all the grounds, dismissed the plaintiffs suit for possession by judgment and order dated 27/2/1976. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the district Court being Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1976. The learned District Judge, who heard the appeal, by his judgment and order dated 27/2/1981 dismissed the appeal with costs. That is how the plaintiff is before this Court by way of revision under section 29 (2) of the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the rival parties. That is how the plaintiff is before this Court by way of revision under section 29 (2) of the bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the rival parties. Mr. Lakhani, teamed advocate appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff has fairly submitted that the view of the evidence placed on record taken by the Courts below would be one possible view. . Whereas according to his submission atleast on the question of change of user, erection of permanent structure, unlawful sub-letting and/or assignment and licence for monetary consideration, a different view of the evidence could be canvassed before this Court in this revision application. Mr. Lakhani submitted that even the trial Court assessing the evidence at length observed that the part of the premises was used for residence right from the inception, that the rent note exh. 67 though denied by the defendant, was proved, that the structures in the form of erection of partition wall and laying down of drainage (Gutter) were the facts established on the record of the case, that the defendant-company leased out to M/s. Klin Wadding Mills, a different entity, the plant and machinery and that the services of the workers of the defendant- company, who were residing in the part of the suit premises were also made available to the aforesaid other company. Now on all the aforesaid aspects both the Courts below have discussed, dealt with and appreciated the evidence at length and have come to the conclusion that the rent note exh. 67 indicated the letting out for factory purpose by usage of the word sugar factory which came to be erased at a later point of time and that too in the rent note, which is a printed rent note. Upon appreciation of the evidence, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that right from the inception, that is to say since 1953 when the premises were let out, they were used for manufacturing purpose. Even the prior letting was for manufacturing purpose. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff about the letting of the suit premises only for the residential purpose stood not established on weighing of the evidence. Reference has been made to various documents. Even the prior letting was for manufacturing purpose. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff about the letting of the suit premises only for the residential purpose stood not established on weighing of the evidence. Reference has been made to various documents. The insurance policies, the extracts from the pledge register of State Bank of Saurashtra are a few of such documents which have been taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence by the Courts below. With regard to the aforesaid structures, Courts below have made reference to the explanation added to section 13 (l) (b) of the Rent Act and it has been found on evidence that the structures in question could not be said to have been not referable to the explanation, which reads as under: "for the purposes of this clause, the expression permanent structure does not include the carrying out of any work with the permission wherever necessary, of the local authority, for providing a wooden partition, standing cooking platform in kitchen, door, lattice work or opening of a window necessary for ventilation, a false ceiling, installation of air-conditioner, an exhaust outlet or a smoke chimney. " ( 6 ) WITH regard to the ground of sub-letting and/or assignment, reference has been made to document exh. 92, which is agreement entered into between the defendant company and Omprakash Sibbal and company, which was later on described as M/s. Klin wadding Mills and according to this document, what was leased was plant and machinery and not the premises in question and even while leasing the plant and machinery for a period of two years, the possession and ownership of even the plant and machinery was retained with the defendant-company. Thus, on appreciation of the evidence, exh. 92 in particular, the Courts below came to the conclusion that whereas the exclusive possession of the suit premises was not parted to M/s. Klin Wadding Mills, the teasing of the plant and machinery as per the document exh. 92 would not result in divesting of possession of any part of the suit premises in favour of M/s. Klin Wadding Mills. Reference has been made to various decisions of the Apex Court for ascertaining intention of the parties and deciding the substance of the documents placed on record. Various circumstances have also been relied upon for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff tailed to establish these grounds of eviction. Reference has been made to various decisions of the Apex Court for ascertaining intention of the parties and deciding the substance of the documents placed on record. Various circumstances have also been relied upon for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff tailed to establish these grounds of eviction. ( 7 ) MR. A. s. Vakil, learned advocate for the defendant-company has placed reliance upon two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, which would leave no room for the plaintiff to succeed in this revision application. The first one is contained in the case of mrs. Dossibai vs. Khemchand reported in AIR 1966 SC 1939 = 1962 (3) SCR 928 (SC) = 1962 (1) SCJ 598 (SC), where it has been held that-when open land is leased out and thereafter building is constructed on the open land, sub-letting of the building would not tantamount to sub-letting of the land and the bar of section 15 of the Rent Act would operate only in the way of letting out the land of which lease had been taken. Mr. A. S. Vakil taking the analogy from this decision has Submitted that leasing of the plant and machinery which were subsequently installed in the suit premises for carrying out the purpose for which they were hired, would not per se tantamount to leasing of the suit premises. In my opinion, this argument would clinch the issue in reply to a possible submission made for saying that the legal control and possession of the plant and machinery was parted with in favour of M/s. Klin Wadding Mills upon the true construction of document exh. 92. Then there is another decision in the case of girdhatbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1782 = 1987 (3) SCC 538 (SC ).- 1987 (2) JT 599 (SC) = 1987 (1) Scale (2) 1235, where the Supreme court has pointed out the limitation of the revisional Court exercising jurisdiction under section 29 (2) of the Rent Act Accordingly, even if one possible view on appreciation of evidence is canvassed, this Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the lower court. ( 8 ) IN the facts of the case and after going through the judgments of the Courts below and considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no point of law, which can have the effect of displacing entirely the view taken by the Courts below, on all the aforesaid grounds of eviction. ( 9 ) THIS revision, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Rule is, therefore, discharged with no order as to cost. ( 10 ) IT is made clear that if the defendant-company has been ordered to be wound up, it would be open to the plaintiff to approach the Company Court for any relief that may be available to the plaintiff in accordance with law. .