S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-2-1987 in Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1984. The judgment under challenge affirms the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 323 of 1979 dated 2/-6-1983 of IInd Joint Civil Judge, j. D. , Dhule.

( 2 ) THE proceedings are under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act ). The petitioners are original plaintiffs whereas respondents are original defendants. The suit property is C. T. S. No. 1893 and 1824 belonging to the petitioners.

( 3 ) IT is common ground that respondents are tenants of the ground floor premises which consists of three rooms, ota and godown. It appears that initially two rooms and godown was let out to the father of the respondents. The rent was fixed at Rs. 100/- per month. Then the third room was also let and monthly rent was increased to Rs. 160/ -. In April, 1979, respondent took one more room adjacent to his premises from one Dekhabhai and claimed tenancy over it. The rent of the said room was fixed at Rs. 50/- per month. Thus, the respondent became tenant of the whole premises at Rs. 210/- per month.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that respondents run a shop under the name of bhairulal Nandkishor and Company in the suit premises.

( 5 ) REGULAR Civil Suit No. 323 of 1979 was laid in the Court of Ilnd Joint civil Judge, Junior Division on 1/-8-1979 by the petitioners. The allegations in the plaint are that respondents have carried out permanent alterations in the suit premises by affixing doors at the brink of the ota and thus converted ota portion in a room. It was also alleged that respondents have damaged ceiling portion of the premises. In substance, petitioners invoked section 108 (O) of the Transfer of property Act, 1882. Another ground put forward was that respondents were in arrears of rent and education cess since 1-6-1967 at the rate of Rs. 160/- per month till 30-4-1979 and for additional room from 1-5-1979 at Rs. 50/- per month. This amount wasdemanded but respondents did not pay the same. Hence, a notice was issued but respondents forwarded only Rs. 4600/- and thus they are defaulters.

( 6 ) IT was alleged that respondents are running business in the name of bangad Traders in Uday building bearing C. T. S. No. 4747 at Dhule. This Uday building is permanent construction and respondents can very well conduct their business from these premises. It was contended that the respondents are not in need of the suit premises for their business. Instead, they have inducted other persons in these premises and thus there is sub-letting and profiteering on their part.

( 7 ) IT was alleged that petitioner No. 1 Govardhandas was previously serving in Maharashtra Vegetables. His services were terminated on 1-1-1979. It was pleaded that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 want to run some business and for which they have no premises. They are in need of the premises for their business. It is alleged that southern portion of the suit property is in possession of petitioner No. 3 and he has a separate shop in the same. It is alleged that rest of the petitioners are not on cordial terms with Hukumchand, They want to start a separate business.

( 8 ) ON the aforesaid grounds, the relief of possession of the suit premises along with damages in lieu of rent was claimed by the petitioners.

( 9 ) RESPONDENTS appeared in response to the suit summons. They filed a written statement at Exhibit 25. They denied that petitioners have got no business of their own. It was also denied that respondents do not conduct any business in the suit premises. On the other hand, respondents are in possession of the suit premises since last 30 years as tenant and they deal as grain merchant and commission agent and Pakka Adtya in various commodities. It was specifically contended that respondents have total turnover of Rs. 2 crores and are having very prosperous