JUDGMENT Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - The applicants are the grand daughters of the original tenant, and the 1st respondent is the owner. The applicants grandfather was an Olympian; he left a legacy of medals in hockey and litigation, too. 2. To set out the facts in brief, I may note that Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., employed the applicants grandfather Randhir Singh Gentle in their establishment. For he was an Olympian, being a part of the Hockey team that secured gold medal for India in the 1960s. He was also given accommodation. During his lifetime, he continued to enjoy the leased property, initially as an employee and later as an exemployee. 3. In the course of time, when Gentle was alive, the employer provided him financial assistance. And with that, he built a separate house at some other place. Yet he continued to occupy the leased property. Later he died. Among others, his wife and son succeeded him and continued to live in the property. 4. In 1995, Tata Housing Development Company, the owner, wanted to demolish the structure and raise a new one. Therefore, it wanted the tenants to vacate. For that purpose, all the tenants seem to have signed an agreement, as contemplated under Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ( Bombay Rent Act .) Let us confine our discussion to Gentle s successors. His legal representatives, including his son Suresh Gentle, on 17.4.1995, contracted with an owner in that regard. According to that agreement, Suresh Gentle and his family must be provided a transit accommodation until Tata Housing Finance could raise new structures and induct the family back. But that agreement has never taken effect. 5. At any rate, in 1998, Tata Housing Development filed RAE Suit No. 297/627 of 1998. It sought the eviction of Suresh Gentle s family on these grounds: (a) alternative accommodation, (b) subletting, (c) immediate demolition and re-construction and (d) arrears of rent. Eventually, the trial Court decreed the suit on 8th February 2010-on all grounds. Later, aggrieved Suresh Gentle filed Appeal No.149 of 2010. That was dismissed on 3.2.2018. 6. As a collateral fact, I may note that in the Suit, the first defendant was Suresh Gentle and the 2nd defendant was the alleged sub-tenant. The alleged sub tenant filed a written statement but led no evidence. Later, aggrieved Suresh Gentle filed Appeal No.149 of 2010. That was dismissed on 3.2.2018. 6. As a collateral fact, I may note that in the Suit, the first defendant was Suresh Gentle and the 2nd defendant was the alleged sub-tenant. The alleged sub tenant filed a written statement but led no evidence. When the appeal was pending, the 2nd defendant died in 2014. Then, his legal representatives came on record, but against the adverse decree, they did not appeal. It was only Suresh Gentle that carried the litigation. Pending the appeal, the very appellant, that is Suresh Gentle, too, died. So his two daughters came on record and continued the appeal but could not succeed. Eventually, they have filed this Civil Revision Application. Submissions: Applicants: 7. Shri Prem Sood, the learned counsel for the applicants, has submitted that the courts below have concurrently erred. To elaborate, he has submitted that the courts below, especially the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, have rendered mechanical findings on all the issues. The impugned judgments betray non-application of mind. 8. To begin with, he has laid frontal emphasis on Exh.41 agreement to contend that the owner itself agreed to provide alternative accommodation to the applicants father. Had it been a case of the tenant s securing an alternative accommodation, the owner would not have offered him that transit arrangement, under an agreement. At any rate, he contends that though the Company wanted to go for immediate demolition, it did not comply with the statutory mandate under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, the agreement remained unenforced. But that said, that agreement amply demonstrated that Suresh Gentle s family could have an alternative accommodation if they were to vacate the leased property under any circumstances. 9. About the alleged illegal subletting, Shri Prem Sood submits that a friend of the applicants father, living in Amravati, occasionally visited Mumbai with his family. He stayed not only in Suresh Gentle s house but also in the houses of other friends. In one particular instance, he stayed with his family in Suresh Gentle s house for six months. Even during that period, Suresh Gentle s family, too, lived there. So, on this aspect, the courts below have clearly erred. 10. He stayed not only in Suresh Gentle s house but also in the houses of other friends. In one particular instance, he stayed with his family in Suresh Gentle s house for six months. Even during that period, Suresh Gentle s family, too, lived there. So, on this aspect, the courts below have clearly erred. 10. About Suresh Gentle s getting served with the suit summons served at some other place, Shri Sood submits that Suresh Gentle had heart ailment and been operated. So he was living along with his mother in the alternative accommodation, but soon he came back to the leased premises. During that period, the Company ensured service of summons on him in that address as if he were living there-after subletting the leased property. 11. At any rate, Shri Sood has contended that once the Company allowed the original tenant to have his alternative accommodation secured with its own financial help, after many years his legal representatives could not be thrown out on the premise that they had an alternative accommodation. In other words, it is only the original tenant who has secured alternative accommodation, as Shri Sood puts it, but not the subsequent occupants. 12. Eventually, Shri Prem Sood has submitted that during the cross examination, the Company has abandoned all the pleas except the alleged illegal subletting. Therefore, it does not lie in the Company s mouth to canvass the other grounds. Respondents: 13. In response, Shri Nirman Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent Company, with equal vehemence, has contended that on all grounds both the courts below have concurrently held against the tenant. Therefore, as all the issues lie in the realm of disputed questions of fact, this Court may not disturb those filings-especially by exercising its revisional power under Section 115 of CPC. After taking me through the record, he has pointed out that the issue of demolition and reconstruction the findings were even. To elaborate, he has submitted the trial Court has upheld the Company s contention that the structure ought to be demolished. But it has also found that for demolishing the existing structure, the Company did not comply with the statutory mandate under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, to that extent, it negatives the owner contention. 14. To elaborate, he has submitted the trial Court has upheld the Company s contention that the structure ought to be demolished. But it has also found that for demolishing the existing structure, the Company did not comply with the statutory mandate under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, to that extent, it negatives the owner contention. 14. Shri Sharma has, thus, pointed out that once the demolition did not take place, the question of enforcing the agreement has become a non sequitur-of no consequence. 15. Shri Nirman Sharma has emphasized that the tenant has indisputably sublet the property to his friend, who possessed it exclusively. Then, he has taken me to the written statements filed by the admitted tenant and the alleged subtenant and pointed out, what he reckons, the contradictions in them. According to Shri Sharma, the 2nd defendant did admit that he had exclusive possession of the property, by the time suit was filed. But he did not get into the witness box to explain under what circumstances he was required to live in somebody else s property for a long period, that is over six months, with his entire family, at that. He has also emphasized that the suit summons was served on Suresh Gentle, the applicants father, when he was living at some other place-the house his father built with the Company s help. In the end, Shri Sharma has pointed out that the Company has never given up or disclaimed the other issues. Only during the cross-examination did one of the employees of the establishment, he stresses, erroneously averred that the Company was pressing its cause only on the question of illegal subletting but not on other grounds. In this context, Shri Sharma submits that an answer to a question in the cross-examination will not change the nature of the litigation, nor does it is obliterate the issues that have already been framed. Thus, he urges this Court to dismiss the Civil Revision Application. 16. Heard Shri Prem Sood, the learned counsel for the applicants, and Shri Nirman Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents. Discussion: 17. To begin with, the applicants grandfather was the Company s employee and its tenant, too. During his lifetime, he built a house-with the Company s financial help, at that. 16. Heard Shri Prem Sood, the learned counsel for the applicants, and Shri Nirman Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents. Discussion: 17. To begin with, the applicants grandfather was the Company s employee and its tenant, too. During his lifetime, he built a house-with the Company s financial help, at that. After his death, his wife and his son Suresh Gentle continued to occupy the leased property as the successor tenants. At one stage, the Company wanted to demolish the structure and raise a new one. Then, it contracted with Suresh Gentle s family under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. But that demolition and reconstruction never materialised. The contract, thus, remained unenforced. Yet the Company pressed its cause for Suresh Gentle s eviction from the property on various other grounds. 18. In the above context, the trial Court has framed as many as eight issues and answered all in the Company s favour. And I must reckon they are entirely on the questions of fact. The second defendant, the alleged subtenant, never contested the case. Only Suresh Gentle did. When he filed the appeal, the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court has framed these points: Issue Finding Is the suit maintainable? Yes Has the plaintiff proved that the defendants have acquired alternative accommodation? Yes Has the plaintiff proved that the defendant No. 1 has illegally sublet the suit premises to the defendant No. 2? Yes Has the plaintiff proved that it requires the suit premises bona fide and reasonably immediately to demolish them and such demolition is to be made for erecting new building on the premises sought to be demolished? Yes Has the plaintiff been entitled to the mesne profits? Yes 19. Granted all the issues concern questions of fact, I am inclined to examine each issues to see whether there is any material irregularity or perversity in the findings of the Appellate Bench s judgment. The first issue concerns the maintainability, and neither party addressed that issue. So I conclude that the applicants have accepted the finding. 20. On the question of alternative accommodation, much turns. The applicants grandfather, as the original occupant or tenant, built a house, an alternative accommodation, with his employer s financial help. This fact remains undisputable. But the applicants contended that it was the original tenant that secured the accommodation; so that could not be held against his successors. 20. On the question of alternative accommodation, much turns. The applicants grandfather, as the original occupant or tenant, built a house, an alternative accommodation, with his employer s financial help. This fact remains undisputable. But the applicants contended that it was the original tenant that secured the accommodation; so that could not be held against his successors. I am afraid, this contention cannot be countenanced. The original tenant s successors continued in possession of the property only as his legal representatives. Whatever shortcomings the original tenant might have suffered equally bind his successors. True, the original tenant secured the alternative accommodation in 1975, and despite that the Company allowed him to be continue in the tenanted premises. Thereafter, his legal representatives, too, continued. But that cannot be a disabling factor for the owner to press the cause of alternative accommodation at a later stage-even belatedly. Unless it stands extinguished by a statutory mandate or a common law principle such as estopple, the delayed assertion of a right does not denude the remedy. Here, I see neither. 21. If I move on to issue of the illegal subletting, I am afraid it is entirely a question of fact. The 2nd defendant did admit that he has been living in the property for about six months when the suit was filed. The Courts below have disbelieved the versions of the both the first and the second defendants. In particular, the Appellate Bench has drawn precedential support to hold that to prove subtenancy, the landlord has to prove only that the person other than the tenant is in possession of the suit premises. Once that is proved, the tenant must explain under what circumstances a person other than himself has been in possession of the suit premises. According to the Appellate Bench, in this case, the Company has proved the sub-tenancy for the second defendant was in exclusive possession of the suit premises. The Appellate Bench has, first, accepted that mere occupation of the suit premises by the third person is not subletting. But here, according to it, the second defendant s possession of the suit premises was not mere occupation. In that context, it has, then, disbelieved the defendants contention that the second defendant resided in the suit premises as a guest for six months-with his entire family. But here, according to it, the second defendant s possession of the suit premises was not mere occupation. In that context, it has, then, disbelieved the defendants contention that the second defendant resided in the suit premises as a guest for six months-with his entire family. It has, in fact, recorded a finding that Defendant No. 2 has not substantiated pleading in his written statement by entering into witness box. What is relation and purpose for residing for six months in the suit premises. Therefore, it is not mere occupation. Defendant No. 2 was in exclusive use and occupation of the suit premises. Therefore, it is nothing but subletting and that too without consent of the landlord. Therefore, above citations are not applicable to the present case. Hence, we answer Point No. 3 in the affirmative. 22. Hard I may have tried but found no perversity or any error in the above reasoning advanced by the Appellate Bench. 23. On the issue of bona fide requirement-that is, the Company s requirement to demolish the building and raise new one-needs no adjudication. For the Company has given up its claim on the count. So, to that extent, the Appellate Bench s finding goes beyond the Company s cause. So its finding on the Company s bona fide requirement stands set aside. 24. Finally, about the mesne profits, the courts below have held that there was no demand from the Company for arrears of rent. To that extent, it is disentitled. Indeed, mesne profits is a corollary to a tenant s occupation beyond the lease period or on its termination. Its quantum, however, is matter of adjudication under Order 20, Rule 12 of CPC. The finding on this count, too, needs no interference. Conclusion: 25. Thus, the courts below have rendered concurrent findings especially on the issues of alternative accommodation and subletting. And their reasoning suffers from neither perversity nor illegality. So I refuse to interfere with those findings of fact. To facilitate the applicants to explore further adjudicatory avenues to have, as they put it, their grievance redressed, I suspend the judgment for 12 weeks subject to their filing the usual undertaking with the Registry in four weeks. The 12-week period commences from the date the judgment is uploaded.