J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) ). Should the proof of monetary consideration received by tenant from his subtenant be a sine qua non for an ejectment decree or even in absence thereof an eviction decree could be legally recorded against a tenant who has parted with exclusive possession of the demise premises with no animus to return to use the premises or has lost control over it in view of the statutory expression that the tenant has since coming into operation of this act unlawfully sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein is the sole but substantial question requiring judicial examination investigation and adjudication in this Revision Application filed by an unsuccessful tenant by invoking the powers of the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Bombay Rent Act ). ( 2 ) ). The petitioners are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 104/77 for eviction against the defendants on two grounds The plaintiff is the owner of the immovable property known as Kirtikunj situated near ST bus station at Modasa wherein there were 37 rooms out of which the roon Nos. 6 and 12 (interlinked) were rented to petitioner No. 1-original defendant No. 1 by virtue of a rent note Ex. 33 dated 25 on monthly rent of Rs. 30. 00 which is hereinafter referred to as the demise premises Thus the respondent-original plaintiff is the landlord and petitioner No. 1 is the original defendant No. 1 tenant of the demise premises. Petitioner No. 2 is the original defendant No. 2 who is the brother of the tenant and who is alleged to be the subtenant. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the sake of brevity and convenience. ( 3 ) ). The plaintiff by filing the aforesaid suit for eviction inter alia contended that defendant No. 1 has sublet transferred or assigned his interest in the demise premises to his brother defendant No. 2 and that the tenant has committed breach of the terms and conditions of rent note. ( 3 ) ). The plaintiff by filing the aforesaid suit for eviction inter alia contended that defendant No. 1 has sublet transferred or assigned his interest in the demise premises to his brother defendant No. 2 and that the tenant has committed breach of the terms and conditions of rent note. He also alleged that the tenant has made permanent construction contrary to the term of the rent note as well as against the provisions of Bombay Rent Act. Thus on the ground of subletting transfer or assignment under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act and also on the ground of permanent construction under Section 13 the suit came to be filed. ( 4 ) ). Both the defendants appeared and resisted the suit by filing composite written statement Ex. 11 According to the case of the defendants defendant No. 1 tenant on vacating the demise premises twelve to fifteen months prior to the filing of the suit and shifting to a residential property purchased by him from Gujarat Housing Board the defendant No. 2 who was along with him from the beginning was accepted by the plaintiff-landlord as his tenant. The allegation of permanent construction in the demise premise was also denied. In view of the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parties issues came to be raised at Ex. 15 by the Trial Court and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and evidence the Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff-landlord is entitled to eviction on both the grounds. ( 5 ) ). The defendants challenged the judgment and decree dated 18-10-80 passed by the Civil Judge (J. D.) Modasa in Regular Civil Suit No. 104/77 by filing Civil Appeal No. 29/80 in the District Court Sabarkantha at Himatnagar. The Appellate Court confirmed the decree on the ground of Section 13 (1) (e) and reversed the decree on the ground of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore the original defendants have now come before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the decree confirmed by the Appellate Court under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act by filing this revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 6 ) ). The power of this Court in a revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act is very much limited. ( 6 ) ). The power of this Court in a revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act is very much limited. The questions of fact cannot be reappraised and re-examined unless there is illegality or miscarriage of justice. Although powers of this court in a revision under Section 29 are little wider than one under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code it is narrower than the appellate powers. The revisional powers of the High Court under Section 24 (2) is limited in terms of section itself and is necessarily narrower. ( 7 ) ). In Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1782 the Apex Court has held that in exercising revisional powers under Section 29 (2) the High Court must ensure that the principles of law have been correctly borne in mind by the lower court secondly facts have been properly appreciated and a decision arrived at taking all material and relevant facts in mind. In order to warrant interference the decision must be such a decision which no reasonable mall could have arrived at. Lastly such a decision does not lead to a miscarriage of justice. But in the guise of revision substitution of one view where two views are possible and the Trial Court has taken a particular view is not permissible. If a possible view has been taken the High Court would be exceeding its jurisdiction if it substitutes its own view in place of that of the courts below because it considers it to be a better view. It is also held by the Supreme Court that the fact that the High Court would have taken a different view is wholly irrelevant. ( 8 ) ). In Bhai Chand Ratanshi v. Laxmishanker Tribhavan AIR 1481 SC 1690 the Supreme Court has also held that under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act although the High Court has wider jurisdiction than the one exercisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 its revisional jurisdiction could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the decision was according to law. Thus it is a settled position of law that even in a revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act the ambit and scope is circumscribed. Thus it is a settled position of law that even in a revision under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act the ambit and scope is circumscribed. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below could not be reexamined and reconsidered unless it is successfully shown to be perverse or illegal. ( 9 ) ). The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently held in the present case that defendant No. 1 has left the demise premises and the defendant No. 2 has occupied the premises and it is in his exclusive possession and tenant is liable for eviction. This finding of fact is not shown to be perverse or illegal. Therefore the eviction decree recorded by the Courts below on the consistent and concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in a revision under Section 29 of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 10 ) ). However the learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati while appearing for the petitioners-original defendants has contended that the Courts below have committed serious error of law in finding that there was subtenancy. He has further contended that the subtenancy is not proved as for ejectment decree on the ground of subtenancy parting with exclusive possession for a consideration must be proved. It is his contention that therefore there will be no subtenancy as the consideration is not proved. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Deepak Banerji v. Lilabati reported in AIR 1987 SC 2055 and also on a decision of this Court in Bhagwati Spg. and Wvg. Works v. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills reported in 20 GLR 932. ( 11 ) ). Thus the contention is raised that no sublease or tenancy could be created without valuable consideration and mere exclusive possession with a brother as in the present case no inference could be raised about the consideration. In Deepak Banerjees case (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that there was no creation of subtenancy in absence of two ingredients viz. the tenant must have exclusive right of possession or interest in the premises or parl of the premises in question and secondly that right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. In Deepak Banerjees case (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that there was no creation of subtenancy in absence of two ingredients viz. the tenant must have exclusive right of possession or interest in the premises or parl of the premises in question and secondly that right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. In that case it was found on facts that there was no evidence of subtenant being in exclusive occupation of part or whole of the premises over which the tenant had not retained any control. In the present case there is clear consistent and concurrent findings of the Courts below that exclusive possession is parted with by the defendant No. 1 tenant to his brother defendant No. 2 subtenant. The onus of proof then shifts to the tenant and more so when tenant has no control over it. The contention of the defendant No. 2 that he was accepted as a direct tenant by the landlord is disbelieved. What is the nature and character of his possession and what is the understanding on which he has been inducted in the demise premises could not be shown by the landlord. According to the case of the defendants both the brothers were in enjoyment of the demise premises and on vacating the demise premises by defendant No. 1 and then shifting to the Gujarat Housing Board residential premises the defendant No. 2 was accepted by the landlord as a direct tenant. This was the specific plea raised in the written statement and it is disbelieved by the Courts below on facts. The contention that the defendants have shown that there was no consideration is not acceptable in the light of the evidence on record. ( 12 ) ). Again the case of the landlord that he is entitled to eviction under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act as the defendant No. 1 tenant has sublet transferred or assigned his interest to his brother defendant No. 2 is rightly found proved. In para 5 of the plaint it is the specific case of the landlord that the defendant No. 1 has transferred assigned or sublet the demise premises to his brother defendant No. 2 after shifting to residential premises purchased by defendant No. 1 from Gujarat Housing Board in 1975 The issues at Ex. In para 5 of the plaint it is the specific case of the landlord that the defendant No. 1 has transferred assigned or sublet the demise premises to his brother defendant No. 2 after shifting to residential premises purchased by defendant No. 1 from Gujarat Housing Board in 1975 The issues at Ex. 15 settled by the Trial Court also covers the case of subtenancy as well as transfer or assignment. According to the case of the landlord the defendant-tenant is liable for eviction on the ground of contractual and statutory prohibition of subtenancy transfer and assignment. ( 13 ) ). Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act provides for eviction decree to the landlord if the tenant has unlawfully sublet or assigned or transferred his interest therein. Section 13 (1) (e) reads as under:"that the tenant has since the coming into operation of this Act unlawfully sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein;" ( 14 ) ). The expression transferred in any other manner is much wider. It would obviously include transfer made in favour of a relative or known person if the tenant has left the demise premises handing over the exclusive possession to the plaintiff landlord. Transfer for valuable consideration if proved would undoubtedly amount to subletting. However the connotation transfer in any other manner cannot be given a restricted meaning as contended before this court. ( 15 ) ). Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act is required to be read along with Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. Section 13 (1) (e) provides a ground for eviction in the event of proof that the tenant has unlawfully sublet or assigned or transferred his interest in any manner. The expression unlawfully has also reference to Section 15. The use of this expression unlawfully has also reference to subletting transfer or assignment. Thus the term unlawfully qualifies all the three verbs sublet assign or transfer. It is clear from the term of sub-Section 15 (1) which prohibits subject to any contract to the contrary subletting of premises or transfer of interests therein. In order to earn an ejectment decree under Section 13 (1) (e) the landlord has to show subletting assignment or transfer. It is clear from the term of sub-Section 15 (1) which prohibits subject to any contract to the contrary subletting of premises or transfer of interests therein. In order to earn an ejectment decree under Section 13 (1) (e) the landlord has to show subletting assignment or transfer. The case of the landlord is upheld by both the courts below that defendant No. 1 tenant has sublet or transferred his interest in the demise premises to his brother defendant No. 2. ( 16 ) ). The following facts have remained unquestionable from the evidence on record : (1) Both the brothers were leaving separate since long. (2) Ration cards of both the brothers were different. (3) Defendant No. 1 had hired the premises in his individual capacity (4) Defendant No. 2 was staying in the house of one Madhukantaben along with his wife Savitri and mother separately. (5) The rent receipts produced at Exs. 47 to 63 clearly go to prove that defendant No. 2 was in occupation of the rented house of Madhukantaben from 6- 1-60 to 31-12-76. (6) Defendant No. 1 purchased Gujarat Housing Board residential premises in 1975 and he shifted from the demise premises to the said premises and thereafter the exclusive possession has been with defendant No. 2 who came to reside in the demise premises first time along with his wife and mother. (7) The defendants who are brothers were living separately and doing separate business. The documents at Exs. 72 and 73 are the extract produced from the municipal record showing different licences for different shops under the Shops and Establishments Act in the names of the brothers. ( 17 ) ). It can very well be seen from the evidence on record that both the brothers were separate and the mother was staying with defendant No. 2 in a rented premises of Madhukantaben and defendant No. 1 on his getting a residential premises of Gujarat Housing Board vacated the demise premises and shifted there handing over the exclusive possession to his brother. Thus exclusive possession was parted with by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 who is a brother and he shifted to another premises with no intention to return to the demise premises and without leaving any control over it Even assuming for the sake of argument that the onus of proof to show want of consideration is discharged by the defendants and subtenancy is not proved then also there will be a clear case of transfer or assignment by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 which is also prohibited by Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act and also by Rent Note Ex. 33. ( 18 ) ). Having imposed restriction for eviction under the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rent Act the Legislature further thought that it would be reasonable to impose restriction upon the tenants from transferring or assigning or subletting the premises save and except in respect of certain classes of leases. In order to meet with the situation caused by acute housing shortage the legislature has on the one hand sought to restrain the landlords from evicting the tenants except on number of certain specified grounds and on the other hand it has thought it fit to impose restrictions on the rights of the tenants to sublet transfer or assign the demise premises with a view to discourage the tenants from exploiting the situation caused by acute shortage of accommodation. The contention that subtenancy or sublease as alleged is not proved in absence of any proof of consideration even if it is assumed to be correct and acceptable then also there is a clear case of transfer or assignment of interest by the tenant to his brother defendant No. 2 in the demise premises which is prohibited under Section 13 (1) (e) and also under the Rent Note. ( 19 ) ). Reliance on the decisions of this Court in Dahiben v. Administrative Officer 21 GLR 90 and in Bhagwati Spinning and Weaving (supra) is not helpful to the petitioners-orginal defendants in the light of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case. The proposition laid down in those decisions cannot be questioned. However the said propositions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 20 ) ). The proposition laid down in those decisions cannot be questioned. However the said propositions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 20 ) ). In Harshachandra Narsibhai v. Ibrahim Haji reported in 1984 GLH 965 this Court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid two decisions and the same are explained. In the aforesaid two cases the court was concerned only with the question as to what would amount to subletting. As observed hereinbefore Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act is much wider. It is not confined merely to acts of unlawful subletting or sublease. The connotation transfer in any other manner would include transfer made even in favour of relative or a known person once it is established that the tenant has left the premises and has put the transferee or the relative in exclusive possession of the demise premises. In the aforesaid two cases relied on by the learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati the question of transfer in any other manner his interest by the tenant was not in the focus. In the present case there is specific plea in para 5 of the plaint and resultant issue was also raised by the Trial Court. In the circumstances the aforesaid decisions relied on by Mr. Nanavati are of no avail and helpful to the petitionersoriginal defendants. As such ratio of Harshchandras case (supra) is directly attracted. The present case is squarely therefore covered by the ratio of the said decision. . ( 21 ) ). It is now well-settled that the land-lord can seek to prove on such allegation that subletting is a fact that the premises are not occupied by the tenant or any member of his family but by some other person. Once this is established. the onus would obviously shift on the tenant who has to indicate precisely who this outsider is and explain the circumstances in which he has come to occupy the premises. ( 22 ) ). It is true that in case of subtenancy exclusive parting with possession of part or whole of the demise premises for a valuable consideration has to he proved. Such facts about valuable consideration could be proved expressly or could be inferred from other factors. ( 22 ) ). It is true that in case of subtenancy exclusive parting with possession of part or whole of the demise premises for a valuable consideration has to he proved. Such facts about valuable consideration could be proved expressly or could be inferred from other factors. Though the existence of valuable consideration can he proved by evidence it is extremely to difficult for the landlord to prove that there was valuable consideration between the tenant and the subtenant particularly when the act of subletting results into serious consequences under the Rent Act. ( 23 ) ). In the present case subtenancy is prohibited by the contract also. In a given case the existence of valuable consideration can be inferred from the set of facts and circumstances. Ordinarily the inference of valuable consideration between the tenant and the alleged sub tenant who is a close relative like brother may not he readily inferred. However in the instant ease in view of the specific term in the rent note at out the prohibition against subletting transfer or assignment of interest in the demise premises to any other person it will be very likely that the tenant would transfer the whole premises to defendant No. 2 who is his brother and Who was separate in residence business and in every respect without taking any consideration from him. Again it may be noted that both the brothers have separate business. They are maintaining books of accounts as per the evidence on record. Who was paying rent could have been easily elicited or ascertained from the books of accounts had the same been produced before the Trial Court. It is a settled proposition of law that withholding of such an important documentary evidence will give rise to an adverse inference to be drawn against the party withholding such documents. ( 24 ) ). In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case even in a case of close relative like brother the existence of valuable consideration can be inferred. Therefore both the conditions constituting unlawful subtenancy falling within the ambit of Section 13 (1) (e) are established. ( 25 ) ). Therefore the reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Bhagwati Spg. and Wvg. Works v. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills reported in 20 GLR 932 by the learned Advocate Mr. Therefore both the conditions constituting unlawful subtenancy falling within the ambit of Section 13 (1) (e) are established. ( 25 ) ). Therefore the reliance placed on the decision of this Court in Bhagwati Spg. and Wvg. Works v. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills reported in 20 GLR 932 by the learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati is of no assistance. The observations made in para 10 of the said decision will not help the tenant in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 26 ) ). Mr. Nanavati has also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Dahiben v. Administrative Officer 21 GLR 90. In that case the demise premises were transferred from Taluka Panchayat to the Municipality and there was no consideration passed from the Taluka Panchayat to the Municipality in relation to the transfer. This decision is relied on in support of the contention that mere transfer of exclusive possession is not sufficient to constitute subtenancy. It is held in this decision that in order to prove the act of unlawful subletting under Section 13 (1) (e) it is necessary to prove two ingredients : (1) transfer of exclusive possession of the suit premises or a part thereof to the sub-tenant and (2) such a transfer must be for a valuable consideration. In that case the circumstances were available to show that the transfer of the demise premises from Taluka Panchayat to the Municipality was not accompanied by valuable consideration. It was therefore held in that case that the suit premises cannot he said to have been unlawfully sublet by the Taluka Panchayat to the Municipality. After having examined the entire decision there is no hesitation in finding that the ratio of the said decision is not attracted to the facts of the present ease. ( 27 ) ). It is very clear from the plain perusal of Section 13 (1) (e) that not only unlawful subtenancy but unlawful assignment or transfer in any other manner his interest in the premises is prohibited. Thus even in ease of an assignment or transfer of interest in any other manner is also unlawful. It cannot be contended that there was no any assignment of interest in the demise premises by the tenant to his brother. Assignment it has been stated in Blacks Law Dictionary Special Deluxe Ed. Thus even in ease of an assignment or transfer of interest in any other manner is also unlawful. It cannot be contended that there was no any assignment of interest in the demise premises by the tenant to his brother. Assignment it has been stated in Blacks Law Dictionary Special Deluxe Ed. p. 106 is a transfer or making over to another of the whole of any property real or personal in possession or in action or of any estate or right therein. It has further been stated as the transfer by a party of all its rights to some kind of property usually intangible property such as rights in a lease mortgage agreement of sale or partnership. It is therefore necessary that parting with exclusive possession even in absence of any proof of available consideration would he an assignment of interest in the demise premises which is also unlawful and covered by the provisions of Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 28 ) ). Section 13 (1) (e) is much wider and it is not confined merely to the acts of unlawful subletting. The words transfer in any other manner are much wider and would include within their meaning an assignment or transfer by a tenant in favour of relative or known person and this is proved then in that case it is also an unlawful action covered under Section 13 (1) (e ). There is no any manner of doubt from the record of the present case that the entire demise premises are transferred by the tenant to his brother who was not a member of his family residing with him. The tenant has parted with the exclusive possession to his brother and has left the demise premises with no animus to return or has not retained control over it till today would be sufficient to transfix the accountability of the tenant for eviction on the ground of unlawful transfer or assignment of his interest also under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 29 ) ). It may also be noted that the spirit and philosophy behind the provisions of Section 5 of the Bombay Rent Act is also to place restriction on the persons on whose interest the tenancy right devolves in respect of the demise premises. ( 29 ) ). It may also be noted that the spirit and philosophy behind the provisions of Section 5 of the Bombay Rent Act is also to place restriction on the persons on whose interest the tenancy right devolves in respect of the demise premises. If an assignment goes beyond the persons envisaged under Section 5 (11) (c) such persons cannot be considered as tenant and as such the assignment or tenancy or transfer of leasehold rights will be construed as unlawful and is hit by the provisions of Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. In the circumstances if an assignment or transfer of interest of tenant in the demise premises in any other manner to any other person will constitute a launching pad for a legal missile for recovery of possession of the premises under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 30 ) ). In Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayan reported in AIR 1989 1141 the Supreme Court has observed quoting a paragraph at page 473 of the decision in Stening v. Abrahams (1931) 1 Ch. D 470 which are very material: ( 31 ) IN Skinner v. Geary (1931) K. B. D. 546 after tracing the history of Rent legislation it is observed that the fundamental principle of the Rent Restriction Acts being to protect a tenant who is residing in a house a tenant to be entitled the protection of the Acts must be in personal occupation or actual possession of the premises in respect of which he seeks that protection. A person who is not in possession of the demise premises and who has parted with the exclusive possession is precluded from claiming to retain the possession or statutory umbrella of the Act. Thus the underlying purport and design of the entire scheme of the Rent Act is to see that a tenant who is seeking protection of the Act from being evicted on the ground of subletting transfer or assignment must be in possession or he must retain the right to possess. A tenant who is not in occupation of the premises is not entitled to the protection when he has parted with the exclusive possession to an outsider who is not a member of his family and who has not retained even concurrent right of enjoyment of the property. A tenant who is not in occupation of the premises is not entitled to the protection when he has parted with the exclusive possession to an outsider who is not a member of his family and who has not retained even concurrent right of enjoyment of the property. The Court has not only to see that the tenant who is making money by subletting the premises is covered by Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 15 but any tenant who has parted with the occupation without retaining his right of enjoyment therein as it has been done in the present case may be for reasons of charity and kinsmanship motive other than the motive of remuneration is also not entitled to the protection and is liable to be evicted. ( 32 ) IN Skinners case (supra) appeal filed by the tenant came to be dismissed. For a considerable period before 1919 the defendant was tenant and occupier of a dwelling house at N. which came within the Rent Restriction Acts. In 1919 he went to live at house in another locality of which house his wife was tenant. By permission of the defendant a sister of his wife with her husband then went to reside in the house at N. In May 1930 notice to quit the premises at N. was served by the plaintiff the landlord on the defendant who thereby became statutory tenant of the premises. In June 1930 the defendants sister-in-law left the premises and the defendant permitted his sister to live in them. In an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for possession of the house the country court judge found that the defendant was not in actual occupation of the house at the material time and that he did not retain possession within the meaning of the Rent Restriction Acts by the occupation of his wifes or his own relations since the purpose of that occupation was not to preserve the house as a residence for himself. The country court judge accordingly made an order for possession of the house and this order was affirmed by the Divisional Court. The country court judge accordingly made an order for possession of the house and this order was affirmed by the Divisional Court. ( 33 ) IN the light of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case the irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that defendant No. 1-tenant has transferred or assigned his interest in the demise premises to his brother defendant No. 2 by handing over the exclusive possession thereof and leaving no control over itand with no intention to return to the demise premises has vacated and shifted to the residential premises purchased by him from the Gujarat Housing Board. In this state of proved facts defendant No. 1 by no stretch of imagination could be afforded the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. The initial burden of proof on the landlord once discharged then it is for the tenant to show that he is not liable for eviction under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act. Once the onus is shifted it is for the tenant to prove the facts and circumstances entitling him to the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 34 ) ). In view of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and considering the underlying purport and design of the provisions of Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act and the aforesaid case law this Court has no hesitation in finding that the petitioners original defendants are liable and respondent-original plaintiff is entitled to ejectment decree under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act and the judgment and decree recorded by the Trial Court on this ground and confirmed by the Appellate Court is required to be affirmed. Consequently this revision merits dismissal. Accordingly it is dismissed with costs. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. .