JUDGMENT : J.N. Bhatt, J. In this revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act), the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree recorded in Civil Appeal No. 69/78. 2. The petitioners are the original plaintiff landlords and the respondent is the original defendant tenant. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and defendant for convenience. The plaintiffs filed three regular Civil Suits Nos. 316, 317 and 316 of 1973, for the recovery of rented shops on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent in the Trial Court at Rajkot. The Trial Court passed conditional eviction decree giving time to the tenants to pay balance amount of rent within specified time given by the mandate of the judgment failing which the tenants were directed to vacate the rented premises. The three tenants preferred three regular Civil Appeals before the District Court at Rajkot. The plaintiffs filed cross objections seeking relief of eviction of the rented shops. The Appellate Court decided three appeal Nos. 69, 70, 71 of 1978, by a common judgment on 31st July 1979. The three appeals filed by the tenants including the present respondent came to be allowed. The decree passed by the Trial Court for possession in three suits came to be reversed. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment and decree, the original plaintiffs have filed this revision. 3. The defendant is the tenant in respect of suit premises Nos. 18 and 19 situated at Anant Chambers, Dhebarbhai Road, Rajkot. The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 318/73, for possession and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant tenant. As observed hereinbefore, in a common judgment, the Trial Court passed conditional decree which came to be reversed in a common judgment by the Appellate Court. 4. The Trial Court decreed the suit and passed conditional order for eviction and the defendant tenant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 9795/-. The defendant was given time to deposit the difference of arrears of rent upto 24-4-78, as the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent at the interim standard rent of Rs. 320/- only. The Trial Court fixed the contractual rate of rent as the standard rent. 9795/-. The defendant was given time to deposit the difference of arrears of rent upto 24-4-78, as the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent at the interim standard rent of Rs. 320/- only. The Trial Court fixed the contractual rate of rent as the standard rent. The Trial Court also observed that if the tenant fails to pay the difference within the stipulated time, the suit for possession will stand decreed. The Trial Court passed common judgment in three suits on 20-3-78, which came to be reversed by the Appellate Court on 31st July 1979, in a common judgment in three appeals of the tenants. The decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 318/73, by the Trial Court came to be modified and instead of decree for an amount of Rs. 9795/-, decree for an amount of Rs. 4620/- came to be passed by the Appellate Court. The cross objections filed by the landlords were dismissed. The Appellate Court fixed the standard rent at Rs. 200/-per month for two suit shops exclusive of municipal taxes and education cess. 5. The powers of this Court in a revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act are very much limited. Although the High Court has wider jurisdiction than the one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Code), under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, its revisional power or jurisdiction could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the impugned decision or decree is according to law or not. This proposition is very well established by the Apex Court in Bhai Chand Ratanshi v. Laxmishankar Tribhavan. AIR 1981 SC 1690 . It may also be mentioned that interference of this Court in a revision under Section 23(2) against the finding of fact is not permissible unless it is shown to be perverse or based on no evidence or it is shown to have resulted into manifest injustice. The Apex Court in Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, AIR 1987 SC 1782 , has also held that when two views are possible, the High Court cannot substitute its views. The view taken by the Trial Court or the Lower Appellate Court in the impugned order or decree if found to be possible, then it is riot permissible for the High Court to take a different view and substitute its finding. The view taken by the Trial Court or the Lower Appellate Court in the impugned order or decree if found to be possible, then it is riot permissible for the High Court to take a different view and substitute its finding. The challenge in this revision is against the finding of fact which is not shown to be perverse, tainted with misreading of evidence or suffering from the vice of illegality. The Appellate Court has found on facts that there was no default attracting the rigours of eviction under Section 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. In the light of the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court recorded a clear finding that the defendant tenant is entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Nothing is successfully shown by the unsuccessful landlord which would warrant interference of this Court. In a revision under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, reappraisal and reassessment of the evidence is not permissible. Apart from that, the finding of fact of the Appellate Court that the defendant tenant has qualified himself for the protection of Section 12(3) (b) is found to be justified. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case, it cannot be said that the tenant is liable for eviction from the demise premises on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12(3) (b). Taking into account all the facts and circumstances and the relevant proposition of law, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the present revision is meritless and is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. Six months time is given to hand over the possession on giving an undertaking within 4 weeks from today with usual terms. Revision dismissed.