JUDGMENT : J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. The petitioners in both these revision applications have questioned the legality and validity of eviction judgment and decree recorded in Small Cause Suit No. 2236/75, on 3.10.1980, and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1980, by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('the Rent Act' for short). 2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 in CRA No. 1106 of 1982 are the original plaintiffs and petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 are original defendants Nos. 1A to 1G and petitioner No. 8 is the original defendant No. 2. Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are original defendants Nos. 3A to 3C. Original defendant No. 1 Sukhabhai Revabhai was the tenant who died during the pendency of the suit and defendants Nos. 1A to 1G are the heirs and legal representatives of original defendant No. 1 and deceased Chhaganbhai Revabhai was the original owner of premises situated at Mahidharpura, Limbu Street Naka, Surat. Rooms Nos. 7 and 8 out of the said premises belonging to deceased Chhaganlal Revabhai were let to original defendant No. 1-tenant Sukhabhai Revabhai. Thus, the demised premises are consisted of two rooms, room Nos. 7 and 8. As per rent note, Ex. 56 dated 1.3.1963, initially, room No. 8 was hired by original defendant No. 1-tenant Sukhabhai Revabhai, in 1961, for the purpose of running a hotel at the contractual rent of Rs. 30/- per month. Later on, adjoining room No. 7 was also hired by him, in 1963, for the purpose of his residence. It appears from the record that earlier, rent note was executed in respect of room No. 8. Thereafter, rent note Ex. 56 dated 1.3.1963 came to be executed in respect of both the rooms, at the monthly rent, Rs. 51/- which later on came to be enhanced to Rs. 55/-. 3. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court, original defendant-tenant Sukhabhai Revabhai passed away and his heirs and legal representatives came to be impleaded who are petitioners Nos. 1 to 7 in CRA No. 1106 of 1982. Petitioner No. 8 is original defendant No. 2. Original defendant No. 3 Chhaganlal Revabhai also expired during the course of the proceedings leaving three heirs who are respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 that they are also petitioners in CRA No. 1105/82. 1 to 7 in CRA No. 1106 of 1982. Petitioner No. 8 is original defendant No. 2. Original defendant No. 3 Chhaganlal Revabhai also expired during the course of the proceedings leaving three heirs who are respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 that they are also petitioners in CRA No. 1105/82. For convenience and brevity sake, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arraigned in the original proceedings. 4. The landlords initiated legal battle by filing the above suit for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-tenancy. According to the case of the landlords, original tenant is liable for eviction on the ground of sub-tenancy as he has sub-let, transferred or assigned his interest in room No. 8 to defendant No. 2 Manharlal Ambalal and he has also sublet, transferred or assigned his interest in respect of room No. 7 to his younger brother-defendant No. 3-Chhaganlal. The landlords also claimed eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The defendants appeared and resisted the suit. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 inter alia contended that there is no sub-tenancy in respect of room No. 8. They contended that as defendant No. 1-tenant was not keeping good health and on account of his financial crisis, he had taken defendant No. 2 as his partner in the hotel business which was run in room No. 1. Defendant No. 1 also raised dispute of standard rent and contended that the contractual rent to Rs.55/- per month is excessive. He had also filed an application for fixation of standard rent being MCA No. 176 of 1974. 5. Defendants No. 3 by filing a separate written statement denied the allegations. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 contended that room No. 7 was hired for the purpose of residence of the members of Joint Hindu Family and the rent note was executed by defendant No. 1 being elder member of the family. 6. In the light of the pleadings of the parties and facts and circumstances, issues time to be framed at Ex. 24. On appreciation and analysis of the evidence on record, the court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of Section 13(1)(e) holding that original defendant No. 1-tenant Sukhabhai Revabhai had sublet his interest in room No. 7 to his brother- original defendant No. 3 Chhaganlal Revabhai. 24. On appreciation and analysis of the evidence on record, the court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of Section 13(1)(e) holding that original defendant No. 1-tenant Sukhabhai Revabhai had sublet his interest in room No. 7 to his brother- original defendant No. 3 Chhaganlal Revabhai. The trial court refused to pass a decree on the ground of non-payment of rent holding that defendant No. 1 was ready and willing to pay the rent but the standard rent came to be fixed at Rs. 51/- per month instead of contractual rent of Rs. 55/- exclusive of taxes. Notice was found to be legal and valid by the trial Court. In short, the trial court found that the plaintiffs have successfully established that original defendant No. 1-tenant had unlawfully sublet, transferred and assigned his interest in the part of the suit premises viz. room No. 7 to defendant No. 3 and, therefore, decree came to be passed under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act. The trial court while passing the decree observed in the impugned judgment that the contention of defendant Nos. 1 and 3 that room No. 7 was hired for the purpose of use and occupation by the members of the Joint Hindu Family is not acceptable and sustainable. 7. Being dissatisfied by the passing of the eviction decree by the trial court in the aforesaid suit, original defendants carried the matter before the District Court at Surat by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 288 of 1980. The learned Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal with costs on 11.3.1982 confirming the judgment and decree recorded by the trial court. The appellate court also found that original defendant No. 1 has, unlawfully, sublet a part of the demised premises viz. room No. 7 to his brother, defendant No. 3 and, therefore, the eviction decree recorded by the trial Court is proper and legal. The heirs and legal representatives of original defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 have, however, come up before this court challenging the legality and validity of the ejectment decree on the ground of Section 13(1) (e) in respect of whole of the demised premises by invoking aids of Section 29(2) of the Rent Act. 7A. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have, firstly, contended that the courts below have committed serious error in passing the decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act. 7A. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have, firstly, contended that the courts below have committed serious error in passing the decree for eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act. In that, it has been contended that the courts below should have upheld the contention of defendants that part of the demised premises viz. room No. 7 which was, subsequently, hired was taken for the use and occupation of the members of the Joint Hindu Family. It is further submitted that original defendant No. 1 being the elder member of the family had taken room No. 7 in his name by executing the rent note. 8. It may be first mentioned that the ambit and scope of revision under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act is circumscribed. It is true that the powers of this court in a revision under Section 29(2) are wider than the powers of the revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. However, the main anxiety of the revisional court should be to see as to whether the impugned judgment and decree are in accordance with the law or not. The finding of fact recorded by the courts below, concurrently, and consistently cannot be re-examined and reappraised in a revision under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act like the first appeal. Bearing in mind this settled proposion of law merits of these revision applications are required to be examined. 9. The finding of the trial court that part of the demised premises viz. room No. 7 which was hired is sublet by original defendant No. 1 to his brother-defendant No. 3 Chhaganlal Revabhai is purely a finding of fact. This court cannot substitute its view or finding in place of the pure finding of fact recorded by the courts below. This proposition is also very well established and enunciated. The Apex Court in Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmed Mirsaheb Kadri, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1782 has held that the finding of fact about sub-tenancy cannot be interfered with while exercising revisional powers under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act. Looking at the aforesaid proposition of law, the views and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the courts below are justified and this court is satisfied that there is no perversity, misreading of evidence or illegality. Looking at the aforesaid proposition of law, the views and the ultimate conclusion recorded by the courts below are justified and this court is satisfied that there is no perversity, misreading of evidence or illegality. The contention of the original tenant and his brother-defendant No. 3 that room No. 7 of the demised premises was taken on lease for residential purpose of the members of the Joint Hindu Family is rightly held not proved by both the courts. 10. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that defendant No. 3 Chhaganlal, the younger brother of defendant No. 1-tenant has been in exclusive possession of room No. 7. In view of the rent note Ex. 58, the demised premises were hired by original defendant No. 1 Sukhabhai Revabhai. There is no mention or averment about the fact that room No. 7 was hired for the use and occupation by the members of the Joint Hindu Family. Thus, the leasehold rights were with original defendant No. 1-tenant and he was not found in possession of room No. 7. On the contrary, defendant No. 3 Chhaganlal, the younger brother of defendant-tenant was found in exclusive possession of room No. 7. It was admitted by the wife of deceased Chhaganlal Revabhai-original defendant No. 3, that exclusive possession of room No. 7 has been with defendant No. 3. If a person who is not a tenant or a stranger is found to be in exclusive possession of the demised premises or part thereof, it is for him to show the nature and character of the transfer qua the demised premises or part thereof. The contention of defendants Nos. 1 and 3 that room No. 7 was hired for the purpose of Joint Hindu Family is not proved. What is the understanding between defendants Nos. 1 and 3 is material and is required to be shown by them. if the tenant parts with exclusive possession of whole or part of the demised premises, it is for him to show and prove his case. Apart from the prohibition of sub-tenancy under the rent note, at Ex. 56, there is statutory prohibition on sub-tenancy. Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 15 of the Rent Act provides a ground for eviction. if the tenant parts with exclusive possession of whole or part of the demised premises, it is for him to show and prove his case. Apart from the prohibition of sub-tenancy under the rent note, at Ex. 56, there is statutory prohibition on sub-tenancy. Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 15 of the Rent Act provides a ground for eviction. Landlord is entitled to ejectment decree if it is proved that the tenant has, since coming into force of the Act, unlawfully sublet or transferred his interest in any manner in the demised premises. The adverb 'unlawfully' qualifies all the three verbs, 'sublet', 'assign' and 'transfer'. Thus, if it is proved that the tenant has, unlawfully, sublet, transferred or assigned his interest in any manner after coming into force of the Act, then, it is a statutory ground for eviction of the tenant. If the tenant parts with possession, he would forfeit protection of the Rent Act. The facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case, undoubtedly, go to show that though initially room No. 7 was hired, subsequently, rent note Ex. 56, dated 1.3.1963, came to be executed by original defendant No. 1-tenant Sukhabhail Revabhai in his individual capacity for both the rooms at the monthly rent of Rs. 51/-. Since this court is satisfied that the finding of both the courts that original defendant No. 1 had sublet, transferred or assigned his interest in the part of the demised premises viz. room No. 7 to his younger brother- defendant No. 3 is justified and therefore, present revision applications are required to be dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances and the rent note, Ex. 56, in respect of both the rooms, even sub-letting or transfer or assignment in the part of the of the demised premises will incur eviction respect of whole of it. This is clear from the plain reading of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act. 11. Civil revision Application No. 1105 of 1982 is filed by heirs of original defendant No. 1 who are also joined as respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 in Civil Revision Application No. 1106 of 1982. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in this revision application placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan, 1988(1) RCR 629 : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1362. 7, 8 and 9 in Civil Revision Application No. 1106 of 1982. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in this revision application placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan, 1988(1) RCR 629 : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1362. It is held in the said decision that :- "It well settled that parting with possession meant giving possession to persons other than those to whom possession had been given by the lessee and the parting with possession must have been by the tenant; user by other person is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself, or in other words, there must be vesting of possession by the tenant in another person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession. So long as the tenant retains the right to possession there is no parting with possession." 12. In the case before the Supreme Court, the tenanted premises were residential-cum-commercial and the tenant was carrying on business with his sons and the family was Joint Hindu Family. It is held in the said case that it was difficult to presume that the tenant had parted with possession legally to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Even though the tenant had retired from the business and his sons had been looking after the business, it could not be said that tenant had diverted himself of the legal right to be in possession. If father had a right to displace the possession of the occupants i.e. his sons, it could not be said that the tenant had parted with possession. Reliance was also placed by the Supreme Court on an earlier decision reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 280. After examining and considering the aforesaid decision, it is very clear that in that case, it was found that the father was carrying on business with his sons and the family was a Joint Hindu Family. Therefore, it was held that it was difficult to presume that the tenant had parted with possession legally to attract the mischief of Section 14(1)(b). So is not the factual scenario here. Therefore, it was held that it was difficult to presume that the tenant had parted with possession legally to attract the mischief of Section 14(1)(b). So is not the factual scenario here. Both the courts have concurrently held that room No. 7, a part of the demised, was hired by original defendant No. 1 Sukhabhai Revabhai for himself and not for use and occupation by the members of the Joint Hindu Family. Both the brothers were separate, they were living separately, they are separate in messing. Apart from any such averment or mention in the rent note Ex. 56, there is no eividence led by the the defendants to substantiate the version that room No. 7 was hired for the purpose of residence of Joint Hindu Family. The finding so consistently and concurrently recorded of both the courts below is fully justified and cannot be interfered with. With the result, the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners in CRA No. 1105 of 1982 is not applicable and attracted to the facts of present case. It may be mentioned here that the wife of the deceased-defendant No. 3, has clearly admitted in her evidence that defendant No. 3 has been paying an amount of Rs. 22/- per month to original defendant No.1. 13. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the ejectment decree recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate court is justified and the revision applications challenging its legality and validity are meritless requiring dismissal. Accordingly, these revision applications are dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged in each of the applications. Interim relief shall stand vacated. Revisions dismissed.