J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original defendant tenant in respect of the demised premises bearing house No. 335/2 in Ward No. 6 of Motiram Mohalla, at Navsari town, at the monthly rent of Rs. 16. 50. The respondent is the original plaintiff-landlord. The parties are, hereafter, addressed to as landlord and tenant for convenience sake. ( 2 ) THE landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No. 12 of 1977 in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.) at Navsari, for eviction against the tenant which came to be dismissed. The appeal filed by the landlord before the District Court, at Navsari, was allowed. The tenant carried the matter in revision before this Court. This Court (Coram : A. N. Surti, J) in Civil revision Application No. 476 of 1980 filed by the tenant, remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the suit in accordance with law after giving suitable opportunity to both the sides to prove their respective case having regard to the provisions of Sec. 12 (3) (b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control act, 1947 (the Bombay Rent Act for short) as there was no question of passing of decree under Sec. 12 (3) (b) as liability of taxes was on the tenant. ( 3 ) UPON remained, the Trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit for possession on 27. 12. 1983, which came to be confirmed by the District Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1984. Hence, this revision at the instance of the tenant under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 4 ) THE dispute between the parties has passed through a long legal conduct pipe and has travelled again before this court by way of sixth innings. Almost 18 years old dispute between the parties is, yet, to be finally adjudicated upon. ( 5 ) UPON remand, the Trial Court passed a decree for possession on the ground of non-payment of rent under Sec. 12 (3) (a) as the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months. The Trial Court found that the tenant was not ready and willing to pay the standard rent. ( 5 ) UPON remand, the Trial Court passed a decree for possession on the ground of non-payment of rent under Sec. 12 (3) (a) as the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than six months. The Trial Court found that the tenant was not ready and willing to pay the standard rent. The Trial Court was of the view that the tenant was not liable to pay the education cess in view of the amendment in the Gujarat Education Cess Act, 1962 made in 1970. As per the amendment, there was no liability for education cess on the part of the tenants who were in property the annual letting value of which was Rs. 300/- per year. In other words, since the monthly rent was Rs. 16. 50 and earlier rent came to Rs. 198/-, the provisions of the Education Cess Act were not applicable to the demised premises. The trial Court also found that upon remand, it was open for the Trial Court to decide the case on merits in accordance with law. ( 6 ) IN appeal, it was contended by the tenant that the Trial Court was precluded from applying the provisions of Sec. 12 (3) (a) in view of the direction of this Court in Civil revision Application No. 476 of 1980. The Appellate Court found that the Trial Court was not precluded from considering and applying the provisions of Sec. 12 (3) (a) on remand by this Court. The Appellate Court also found that provisions of Sec. 12 (3) (a) are attracted. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and the evidence, the Appellate court was pleased to confirm the decree for ejectment against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent under Sec. 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. ( 8 ) IN revision under Sec, 29 (2), the scope and ambit is very much circumscribed. It is a settled proposition of law that under Sec. 29 (2), although the High Court has wider jurisdiction than the one under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this revisional power or jurisdiction can only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the impugned order or decision or decree is according to law or not. This proposition is very much propounded in Bhaichand vs. Laxmishanker, AIR 1981 sc1690. This proposition is very much propounded in Bhaichand vs. Laxmishanker, AIR 1981 sc1690. ( 9 ) THE findings of fact cannot also be interfered with in a revision. Not only that, as held by the Apex Court in Helper Girdharibhai vs. Saiyed Mohmed, AIR 1987 SC 1782 , when two views are possible, High Court cannot substitute its view. If the view taken by the court in the impugned decree, decision or direction is possible, then it is not permissible for the High Court to take a different view and substitute its finding. ( 10 ) AFTER having examined the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, it cannot be contended that the impugned decree for ejectment is perverse, unreasonable or illegal. Therefore, there is no substance in this revision. Since this court, though not on all grounds but broadly agrees, with the ultimate conclusion recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the appellate court, it would not be necessary to reiterate and repeat the grounds on which the impugned decree is founded upon. ( 11 ) IN the result, this revision is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Interim relief as to possession granted by this Court on 31. 12. 1984 shall stand obviously vacated. In the circumstances, the petitioner-original defendant-tenant is granted time to hand over possession of the demised premises to the landlord on or before 31st January, 1996, on filing usual undertaking within four weeks from the today. Rule is discharged. .