JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Though controversy lies within a very narrow compass, elaborate arguments on various principles of law were highlighted, which shall be dealt with after noticing the factual scenario involved.

3. Factual background as highlighted by the appellant and accepted to be correct in material aspects by the respondents run as follows : Appellant, a nationalized bank, on the basis of a deed of lease executed on 8.4.1964 is a tenant under the respondents presently. The original landlord was respondents predecessor-in-title. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as landlords ) filed a suit under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (in short the Bombay Rents Act ) in 1983 seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord by order dated 8.4.1994. It was held that landlords had proved reasonable need and greater hardship would be caused to the landlords if prayer for eviction is not allowed. The said order was challenged in Appeal No. 208 of 1994 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai by the present appellant, which was allowed. It was,