JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J.:—In these appeals by special leave the question which falls for our determination is whether the decision of a Bench of this Court consisting of two learned Judges in Phool Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, (1973) 3 SCR 679 is correct. If not, whether the appellants are entitled to get a decree for eviction in respect of the suit premises against the defendant respondent.

2. Thakordas Bhagwandas - the father of the three appellants was owner of the suit premises. He was a partner in a partnership firm styled as Jai Hind Silk Weaving Works. There were three more partners in the firm - one of whom was Shantilal Thakordas, appellant No. 1, son of Thakordas Bhagwandas. The other two were outsides. The suit was filed against respondent Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala for his eviction from the premises on several grounds. The only ground which need to be mentioned for the purpose of the disposal of this appeal is Thakordass claim of requiring the premises reasonably and bona fide for occupation by himself within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The necessity pleaded by the original plaintiff was that he required the premises for the use of the partnership firm aforesaid in which he was a partner. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part on April 30, 1965 and passed a decree for eviction of the tenant from a portion of the suit premises. Both sides went up in appeal before the First Appellate Court. Thakordas was dead and his heirs, namely, the present appellants were the appellant in one appeal and respondents in the other. The First Appellate Court by its judgment dated November 10, 1966 maintained the partial decree made by the Trial Court with slight modification. Both the parties went in revision before the Gujarat High Court. The High Court set aside the decree dated November 10, 1966 of the First Appellate Court and remanded the case to it for a fresh disposal of the appeal after trying out an additional issue of comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant as also the question as to whether the substituted heirs of the original plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bona fide for their occupation.

3. The First Appellate Court after remand again passed a decree for eviction from a portion of the suit premises on March 31, 1970. Two revisions were taken to the High Court - one by the appellants and the other by the respondents. Following the decision of this Court in Phool Ranis case (AIR 1973 SC 2110) (supra) the High Court allowed the respondents revision, rejected that of the appellants and dismissed their suit for eviction in toto. Hence these appeals.

4. The foremost and the first question urged before us by Mr. Dholakia was that Phool Ranis case (AIR 1973 SC 2110) was not correctly decided. We agree with this contention and say with respect that we do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Bench of this Court in that case. The original plaintiff in that case had filed the application for eviction under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The application was dismissed in the first instance by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground that the notices to quit were not valid. Plaintiff filed an appeal but died during its pendency. His widow, son and two married daughters and two children of a deceased daughter were allowed to be substituted by the Rent Controller Tribunal where the appeal was pending. The case was remanded by the Tribunal and after remand the Additional Rent controller held that some of the substituted persons required the premises bona fide for their occupation. The tenants appeal to the Tribunal failed. The High Court of Delhi on a further appeal by the tenant took the view that the right to use did not service to the heirs of the plaintiff and on that ground it dismissed the ejectment application. The case came up to this Court. The view of the High Court was affirmed. The relev