JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. These civil appeals arise out of the judgment dated 03.12.2008 of the Bombay High Court, allowing Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1992 and its later judgment dated 09.09.2009, dismissing Review Petition No. 75 of 2009 in W.P. No. 1067 of 1992, respectively. In turn, W.P. No. 1067 of 1992 filed by Janardhan Subajirao Wide, the respondent herein, arose out of the judgment dated 21.12.1991 of the learned 13th Additional District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 1030 of 1987, confirming the judgment dated 30.09.1987 of the learned II Additional S.C. Judge, Pune, in C.S. No. 386 of 1985.

2. C.S. No. 386 of 1985 was filed by late Ramachandra Maruti Jagadale, plaintiff No. 2, and his wife, late Sou. Rangubai Jagadale, plaintiff No. 1, the predecessors-in-title of the appellants herein, for recovery of possession of the leased premises bearing C.T.S. No. 1873 at Bhamburda, Pune, from the tenant, Janardhan Subajirao Wide. By judgment dated 30.09.1987, the Trial Court decreed their suit, holding them entitled to claim eviction of the tenant under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1947’). Two months’ time was granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. This judgment of the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the learned 13th Additional District Judge, Pune, vide judgment dated 21.12.1991.

3. It is against these judgments that the tenant, viz. the respondent herein, filed W.P. No. 1067 of 1992 before the Bombay High Court. By its judgment dated 03.12.2008, the High Court opined that a case of sub-tenancy was not made out, warranting eviction of the tenant on that ground, and quashed the decree of eviction/ possession. In consequence, C.S. No. 386 of 1985 was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs, who were on record in the writ petition, filed Review Petition No. 75 of 2009. However, by its judgment dated 09.09.2009, the High Court reiterated its finding that the tenant had never parted with possession of the leased premises and had never left the premises, being a partner. Holding so, the High Court concluded that there was no error on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition. Presently, these two judgments are under appeal.

4. While so, the tenant, Janardhan Subajirao Wide, the sole respondent in these appeals, expired on 16.02.2018. Thereupon, the appellants filed I.A. No. 89838 of 2021 seeking condonation of the delay of 1169 days in taking steps and I.A. No. 89837 of 2021 to set aside the abatement of the appeals and to permit substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent. Notice having been ordered thereon, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel, who had earlier appeared for the deceased respondent, efiled his vakalatnama/appearance on behalf of the legal representatives on 05.11.2022. No counter was filed by him opposing the applications. Sufficient cause having been shown, delay in taking necessary steps is condoned; abatement of the appeals is set aside; and legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent are brought on record. Registry shall make necessary changes in the cause titles in both the appeals before issuing certified copies of this judgment.

5. Heard Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

6. The leased premises, consisting of two blocks with an approximate area of 455 sq. ft. are situated on the ground floor on the eastern side of the cement-concrete building, bearing C.T.S. No. 1873 at Bhamburda, Pune. These premises were let out to the tenant by the original landlord and landlady, the predecessors-in-title of the appellants, for the purpose of his hotel business under the name and style of Hotel Ambika. Civil Suit No. 3