IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to cases of illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate Courts.

ORDER

N.V. RAMANA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein who are landlords have approached this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22nd September, 2014 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 50 of 2013 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur wherein and whereby the learned Judge has allowed the Revision by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the appellants/landlords filed Small Cause Civil Suit No. 47 of 2005 on the file of the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati seeking recovery of possession on the ground of bona fide requirement, change in usage of premises, willful default and further sought the relief of mesne profits.

4. It is stated in the plaint that the suit schedule premises bearing new Municipal House No. 187/3 in Ward No. 37 on the ground floor, which is part of three storied building, is owned by the plaintiffs. The defendants’ father originally occupied the property on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- for carrying on the business of Dahi (curd), which was let out to him by the mother of 1st plaintiff and grandmother of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4. After the death of defendants’ father, they have changed the nature of the business and started a travel agency without the prior permission of landlords/owners. The tenants are chronic defaulters who failed to pay the rent from January 2001 to April 2005. In spite of receipt of the notice from the landlords, they failed to pay the rents. In respect of bona fide requirement, it is stated that as plaintiff Nos. 3 & 4 are unemployed and are in need of money for maintaining their family, hence they wanted to start kirana business as such they required the suit schedule property which is suitable for the business. The plaintiff No. 2 in the month of December 2005 started shop of Goli biscuits & Snacks in another shop of 4 x 10 ft. vacated by the tenant. It is stated by the plaintiffs that defendants own and possess two storied residential building having two shop premises wherein one shop is lying vacant. They also owned three luxury buses. Defendants being potential persons do not require this premises but whereas the plaintiffs are in dire need of the premises and balance of convenience is in their favour and if the premises is not vacated it would cause great hardship.

5. In response to this, the defendants filed their written statement stating that the property was let out by the plaintiffs’ mother to defendants’ father in 1979 for business purpose but not specifically to run the curd shop and right from 1999 they are running travel agency as such the permission of the landlord is not required. With regard to willful default it is stated that they are not in arrears and in fact till 2007 in advance they have paid the rents to the mother of the plaintiffs as she was in need of money. It is admitted by the defendants that they own a big complex but they state that it is a residential complex and in fact there is no bona fide requirement of the premises for the landlords but in fact landlords intend to sell the property. It is their further case that they purchased the buses by taking loans and are in severe financial hardship. It is stated by the defendants that the plaintiffs’ main source of income is rents. It is further stated that the plaintiffs have sold the shop in ground floor premises measuring about 7’ x 15” vide sale deed dated 30-09-2004 and another ground floor shop measuring 257 sq.ft. by sale deed dated 13th May, 2005 and another room by sale deed dated 29-05-1995. It is also stated that the plaintiffs are running Pathela on the Nazul land for which Corporation has issued notices to remove the same.

6. The trial Court framed eight issues for adjudication and after a full fledged trial, in response to the issue of willful default held that the rents were paid to the mother of plaintiffs and there was no willful default and the issue is held a