ORDER : Sangeeta K. Vishen, J. 1. Applicants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.04.2024 passed by the Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in civil appeal no.102 of 2017 whereby, the appeal filed by the applicants has been rejected. In the appeal, subject matter of challenge, was the judgment dated 22.06.2017 passed in H.R.P. suit no.652 of 2005. Suit was filed by the respondent no.1, inter alia, for getting possession of the quarters in possession of the applicants. 2. Mr Viral V. Dave, learned advocate for the applicants, has submitted that the issue revolved around the quarter no.22 situated at city taluka Ahmedabad, village Vastrapur, final plot no.18 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) of the ownership of the respondent no.1. The applicants are in possession of the suit property since last more than 50 years, as the husband of the applicant no.1 and father of the applicant nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased employee”), was working with the respondent no.2 and was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.70 per month inclusive of municipal tax. The rent was regularly being deducted from the salary of the deceased employee and even after the retirement, the rent was being paid through money order. 2.1 It is submitted that the suit was filed by the respondent no.1 seeking possession of the quarter on various grounds, namely, arrears of rent, bona fide requirement and the tenancy being a service tenancy. Suit came to be allowed solely on the ground that the deceased employee, was a service tenant of the suit property. Rest of the issues namely, arrears of rent and bona fide requirement, were decided against the respondent no.1. It is submitted that there was no agreement between the respondent no.1 and the deceased employee and therefore, the suit, could not have been filed. It is submitted that the trustees of the respondent no.1 have not entered the witness box. Neither they were examined nor cross examined except one Natwarlal Girdharbhai Panchal who had given the evidence, which, cannot be said to be a permissible evidence. Besides, the respondents have not produced any evidence and despite which, the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, partly allowed the suit and directed the deceased employee to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the quarter and to pay mesne profit. Besides, the respondents have not produced any evidence and despite which, the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, partly allowed the suit and directed the deceased employee to hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the quarter and to pay mesne profit. Similarly, the Appellate Bench, also has committed an error inasmuch as, it failed to appreciate that trustees of the respondent no.1, had not entered the witness box. Therefore, it is urged that the judgments being erroneous, the present application deserves to be entertained. 3. Mr Apurva S. Vakil, learned advocate appearing with Mr Shushil R. Shukla, learned advocate for the caveator - respondent no.1, has vehemently opposed the revision application. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the deceased was the employee of the respondent no.2. As the respondent no.2 was in need of the quarters for its employees, that the respondent no.1 agreed to allot its quarters with a specific understanding between the parties that it shall hand over the possession when required by the respondent no.1. The said understanding, is discernible from the document namely letter dated 16.12.1969 Exhibit 104. It indicates about the allotment of quarters namely, quarter nos.13 to 15 and 17 to 30 to the respondent no.2. It was also agreed between the parties that the rent and the municipal tax, shall be deducted from the salary of the employees whom the quarters would be allotted, with a further stipulation that the possession of the quarters shall be handed over to the society back, in case it needs the same for its staff members. 3.1 It is submitted that the Court has considered documents namely, Exhibit 74 – a communication dated 31.03.1997 addressed by the respondent no.2 indicating that the rent has been deducted from the salary of the staff members wherein, the name of the deceased employee has been referred to. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the deceased was the employee and was allotted quarter on the service tenant basis and the rent, was regularly being deducted from his salary. It is submitted that the deceased employee has retired in the year 2002 and even after the retirement, the deceased employee retained the possession of the quarter. It is submitted that the deceased employee has retired in the year 2002 and even after the retirement, the deceased employee retained the possession of the quarter. In fact, it was clearly understood between the employees and respondent no.2 that after ceasing of the service, the landlord, would be entitled to recover the possession of the suit property. Hence, on the basis of the documentary evidence available on record so also the oral evidence, the Small Causes Court has partly allowed the suit, concluding that the deceased employee was a service tenant of the suit property and directed to hand over the possession of the suit property. 3.2 It is further submitted that the Appellate Court, considered the documentary evidence namely, Exhibits 74 to 76 and 104 etc. While considering the contents of letter dated 16.12.1969 - Exhibit 104, the Appellate Court, pointed out that the letter refers about handing over of the possession back to the society in case of need. It is submitted that after considering the documentary evidence and the judgments, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. It is submitted that when there are concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below, the scope of the appeal under section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) would be limited. 3.3 Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of (i) Bhaichand Ratanshi vs. Laxmishanker Tribhoyan reported in (1981) 3 SCC 502 and (ii) Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Others reported in (1987) 3 SCC 538 . It is submitted that therefore, when there are concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below and unless it is found that the judgments are perverse or illegal, revision application may not be entertained. It is therefore urged that the revision application does not warrant interference and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 5. Tersely stated are the facts. 6. As the respondent no.2 was in need of the quarters, understanding was arrived at between the respondent no.1 on one hand and respondent no.2 on the other that it will allow the respondent no.2 to utilize the quarters. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 5. Tersely stated are the facts. 6. As the respondent no.2 was in need of the quarters, understanding was arrived at between the respondent no.1 on one hand and respondent no.2 on the other that it will allow the respondent no.2 to utilize the quarters. In this connection, the Secretary of the society, had addressed a communication dated 16.12.1969 – Exhibit 104 agreeing to allot quarters namely, quarter nos.13 to 15 and 17 to 30. In the case on hand, quarter no.22 is in question and which was also forming part of the allotment letter. Moreover, it was agreed between the parties that rent and the municipal tax shall be paid by the respondent no.2 through its employees by deducting from their salary. Similarly, electricity charges was also agreed to be paid by the employees. There is no dispute or denial to the said understanding. 7. Admittedly, the deceased employee was allotted quarter no.22 by the respondent no.2. It is also not in dispute that the rent and the municipal taxes, were being deducted from the salary of the deceased employee. The deceased employee, retired from service on 08.11.2002; however, continued to retain the quarter, which led to the filing of the suit by the respondent no.1 on various grounds including the arrears of the rent, bona fide requirement and the nature of the tenancy. The respondent no.1 has placed on record various documents namely, Exhibit 74 to 76 i.e. the letters written by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 regarding deduction of the rent, Exhibit 79 i.e. tax bills for the year 2012-2013 etc. As the deceased employee had expressed his inability to depose, the son of the deceased employee was examined. Considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Small Causes Court, decided the issue of arrears of rent against the respondent no.1 so also bona fide requirement. While, the issue no.5 relating to the nature of tenancy, was answered in affirmative. 8. Pertinently, the understanding between the respondent no.1 on one hand and the respondent no.2 on the other, remained uncontroverted. Besides, the documentary evidence, namely, Exhibits 74 to 76, 79, 104 also could not be dislodged. Accepting the evidence, the Small Causes Court, concluded that quarters including quarter no.22 was forming part of the allotment in favour of respondent no.2, for its employees. Besides, the documentary evidence, namely, Exhibits 74 to 76, 79, 104 also could not be dislodged. Accepting the evidence, the Small Causes Court, concluded that quarters including quarter no.22 was forming part of the allotment in favour of respondent no.2, for its employees. The son of the deceased employee was examined and was unable to produce any documents, except the allotment letter mark 102/2. In his deposition, it is indicated that he was unaware about the fact that the possession of the quarter was given by the respondent no.1. It has been further stated that he had no knowledge as to how the employees have acquired the quarters i.e. by virtue of service with respondent no.2 or otherwise. The Small Causes Court, considering the evidence available and relying upon the judgments in the case of Sureshchandra Lalbhai Desai vs. Official Liquidator, Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. reported in 2008(2) GLR 1644 as well as judgment in the case of Kantilal Ishwarlal Shah vs. Mukundrai Keshavlal Parikh & Others reported in 1973 GLR 227 so also the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act of 1947 held that after ceasing of the service, landlord is entitled to recover the possession of the suit premises. With this, the Small Causes Court, allowed the suit and directed the applicant to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to the respondent no.1. 9. Being aggrieved, that the appeal was filed. The Appellate Court, in depth, considered the documentary and oral evidence. Emphasis was laid on letter dated 16.12.1969 – Exhibit 104 i.e. allotting the quarters to the respondent no.2 for its employees including quarter no.22. The Appellate Court, also took note of the last paragraph of the said letter wherein, it was clearly agreed that the quarters shall have to be handed over to the society in case the society needs the same. Judgments were also considered and ultimately, the Appellate Court, answered the issues in affirmative and concluded that no error has been pointed out in the judgment dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Small Causes Court. Judgments were also considered and ultimately, the Appellate Court, answered the issues in affirmative and concluded that no error has been pointed out in the judgment dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Small Causes Court. Paragraphs 9.1 to 9.5 read thus: “9.1 Perused the arguments advanced by the learned advocate of both the parties, record of the Learned Trial Court and after reappreciating of the evidence, it appears that the plaintiff no.1 is the landlord of the suit premises and defendant no.1 is the employee of the plaintiff no.2 P.R.L. The defendant has admitted in his written statement in para 7 that he has been allotted quarter no.22 and also admitted that plaintiff no.2 deducted the amount of rent and municipal tax from the salary of the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff no.2 paid the rent amount to the plaintiff no.1. Plaintiff produced his oral evidence as well as documentary evidence at exhibit 30, 69 and 103 and documentary evidence at exhibit - 71 to 87 and copy of the allotment letter at exhibit 104 and tried to prove his case. Plaintiff also produced tax bill for the year 2012-13 at exhibit 79 issued by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation which shows that occupied is staff. It shows that tenant residing in this premises as a staff member and it is undisputed fact that tenant is staff member of P.R.L., a unit of Department of Space, Government of India. Respondent no.2 deducted the rent from the salary and paid respondent no.1. No any contract for tenancy or rent agreement between the tenant appellant and landlord respondent no.1. Respondent no.1-landlord gave 50 quarters to unit of government - P.R.L. for residence of staff members and as per government rules and regulations, respondent no.2 deducted the rent from the salary of the appellant - tenant and paid the same to the respondent no.1. As per exhibit-74, 75 and 76. 9.2 Plaintiff landlord also relied upon the documents at exhibit 104 allotment of Society quarter dated 16.12.1969 to Administrative Office of P.R.L. In this letter, it is mentioned that I have to inform that it has been decided to allot 17 quarter nos.13, 14, 15 and 17 to 30 to your Laboratory for your staff members, it includes the suit premises quarter no.22. Last paragraph of this letter mentions that the possession of those quarters shall have to be handed over back to the Society in case the Society needs the same for its staff members within two months from the date of intimation to the Society in this behalf. It shows that respondent no.1 allotted these staff quarters to the respondent no.2 for his staff members. This letter is produced by the witness of the plaintiff- Panchal Natverlal Ghirdharlal at exhibit 103 and also deposed that those quarters which are allotted to the defendant till the end of service. 9.3 As per above discussion and on perusal of the evidence of both the parties, plaintiff proved that defendant tenant is service tenant and entitled to possession of this quarter till the end of his service and after that liable to vacate the suit premises. Learned Trial Court rightly decided the ratio laid down in the case of Sureshchandra Lalbhai Desai V/s. Official Liquidator, Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd., reported at 2008(2) GLR Page 1644 and in the case of Kantilal Ishwarlal Shah V/s. Dr. Mukundrai Keshavlal Parikh and others reported at 1973 GLR Page 227. On expiry of the terms of licence, employee of the company residing in the premises cannot claim tenancy rights on the basis of continuous occupation, municipal record, electricity bills etc. held company court is empowered to directed eviction of such person in unauthorised occupation and pass consequential orders. Sec.31(1)(f) also provides that the premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and that the tenant has ceased. As per the ratio laid down in the judgment and provision of section 31(1)(f) continuous occupation after the retirement of the defendant tenant is illegal and unauthorised occupation. Employee is morally and legally duty bound tohand over the possession after end of his service but in the present case, employee illegally possess the quarter till his lifetime and after the death his legal heirs possess the quarter and breach the condition of service and trust of employee P.R.L. (Physical Research Laboratory) Department of Space Science, unit of Government of India. 9.4 Appellant Hiralal Kuberdas Patel original defendant employee is retired from service on 08.11.2002. 9.4 Appellant Hiralal Kuberdas Patel original defendant employee is retired from service on 08.11.2002. Hence, respondent - plaintiff is empowered to recover the rent as per market rate from the employee as per rule of central government or any other rule applicable to the employee of Physical Research Laboratory. Hence, upto that extent require to interfere in the decree regarding mesne profit. Learned Trial Court ordered that tenant paid the mesne profit of Rs.70/- per month as per rent paid by the appellant - tenant in his service tenure. If court order to pay rent as mesne profit which paid at the time of service then another employee also take dis-advantage and not vacate the possession of the quarter after his end of service and no any Public Trust or any organization give his building/residence to the government for his employees. Hence, in the interest of justice, it is required to interfere with the decree passed by the Learned Trial Court regarding mesne profit. If we pass the order that appellant employee pay the market rate of his quarter as per rule of the central government or any other rule applicable to the employee of Physical Research Laboratory (a unit of Department of Space, Government of India) then interest of justice will survive. 9.5 As per above discussion, Learned Trial court has rightly given the answer of Issue No.5 and not erred any mistake in appreciating the evidence and interpretation of law and decided that tenant is service tenant. Hence, we give answer of Point No.1 in the 'affirmative' and give the answer of Point No.2 in the 'affirmative'.” 10. Mr Viral V. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the applicants could not point out any error much less any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. At this stage, apt, would be the judgment in the case of Bhaichand Ratanshi vs. Laxmishanker Tribhoyan (supra) wherein, it has been held that under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Act of 1947, 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. Relevant observations in paragraph 6, read thus: “6. Relevant observations in paragraph 6, read thus: “6. Under Section 29(2) of the Act as substituted by Gujarat Act 18 of 1965, although the High Court has a 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. It cannot be said that the courts below failed to apply their mind to the requirements of Section 13(2) of the Act as to comparative hardship or their finding was manifestly perverse or erroneous. That being so, the High Court could not substitute its own finding for the one reached by the courts below on a reappraisal of the evidence.” 11. In view of the above referred discussion, this Court, is of the considered opinion that the Courts below have not committed any error in recording the facts much less the application of law or appreciation of evidence. In the circumstances, in absence of any error committed by both the Courts, the captioned application does not merit acceptance and deserves to be rejected and hence, is rejected. No order as to costs.