JUDGMENT

RAY, J.:—We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we grant special leave.

2. This appeal on special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed in Civil Revision Application No. 500 of 1985 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench allowing the Revision, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the district Judge in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 1984 confirming and allowing the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad in R. C. No. ARC/ 71/ 3.

3. The matrix of the case is as follows:-

The appellant-landlord, Chandmal, s/o Sumermal Surana as plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-defendant Firm Ram Chandra & Vishwanath, a commission agent firm from his shop bearing Municipal No. 4-16-101 situated at Mondha, Taluka, District Aurangabad (Maharashtra) under S. 15(3)(a)(iii) of the Hyderabad House (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 to be hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act on the ground inter alia that the respondent was the tenant of the said shop attached to the said house of the appellant-landlord on the monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per month and the tenancy commences from the Ist day of everv month according to the English calendar, that the landlord-appellant requirment the suit shop for his own p[ersonal use as he intended to start commission agency and other business in the said shop, that he terminated the tenancy of the respondent by serving the two notices dated 28-3-1969 and 8-12-1970 and that the respondent did not vacate the suit premises, hence the suit has been filed for eviction of the tenant-respondent from the said premises. Shankarrao Marutirao Sonawane, one of the partners of respondent firm filed his written statement 1 before the Additional Rent Controller accepting the ownership of the appellant and tenancy of the respondent at the rate of Rs. 50 /-per month. He, however, denied. the appellants allegation that he required the suit premises for his personal use. According to the respondent, the appellant is a member of Hindu joint family comprising of his father, Sumermal, his real brothers and appellant and as one of the partners of registered firm runs a kirana of commission agency shop under the name and style of M/s. Rajmal Sumermal Surana. It has been further submitted that the appellant owns many houses and shops at Aurangabad and also runs a very big shop at Bhaji Bazar, Aurangabad and is not entitled to evict. In the additional written statement it has been further stated that the appellant purchased the house from Balkrishna and brothers, the firm Ramchandra and Vishwanath is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, one of the. Partners of the firm Ramchandra and Vishwanath is occupying the house as a permanent tenant since Samwat 2002. It was also been contended that the partners of the firm are not made parties to the eviction proceedings and hence the suit was not tenable.

4. An additional issue was framed at the request of the appellant which was to the following effect:--

"Do defendant prove that he is permanent tenant and his claim is bona fide."

5. The trial Court considering the evidences adduced on behalf of the defendant respondent held that the defendant failed to prove the claim of permanent tenancy of Ramchandra Madhavrao since Samvat 2002 over the suit premises and that the claim of permanent tenancy is not bona fide. This issue was thus answered in the negative.

6. The Additional Rent Controller, therefore, held that the appellant is entitled to evict the respondent from the suit premises in view of the provisions of S. 15(2)(vi) of the said Act and, therefore, made an order directing the tenant-respondent to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said shop to the landlord-appellant within a period of 30 days of the order though he negatived the plea of bona fide requirement of suit premises for his own -occupation.

7. This order was made on February 14 1984. Against this