JUDGMENT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 18/19th April, 2006 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No.347 of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court against the revision applicants.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their status in the trial court. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 are real brothers and co-owners of the suit property. The defendant No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and was in occupation of the property as a tenant since prior to the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant No.1 bearing R.A.E. Suit No.716/ 1427 of 1997 for possession on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. The defendant No.2 who is the co-owner of the property was not initially joined as a party to the suit. However on objection of the defendant No.1 that defendant No.2 was a necessary party, plaint was amended and the defendant No.2 was joined as a party defendant to the suit. Subsequently, plaint was again amended and it was alleged that the shareholders of the defendant No.1 Company had sold all their shares to the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 had taken charge of the defendant No.1 company. It was also alleged that transfer of the shares by the shareholders of the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 amounted to the illegal transfer of the tenancy and therefore, plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for possession also on the ground that the defendant No.1 had illegally and unauthorizedly sublet or otherwise transferred or assigned its tenancy in the suit property to the defendant No.2.

4. The suit was resisted by both the defendants. After considering of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court held that the plaintiffs had proved that they reasonably and bonafide required the suit property for their own use and occupation and business. Trial Court also held that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs by refusing to pass a decree than to the defendants by passing a decree. The trial court however rejected the contention that the transfer of shares by the shareholders of the defendant Nos.1 to the defendant No.2 amounted to illegal transfer of the tenancy. In view of the finding in favour of the plaintiffs on the ground of bonafide requirement and hardship, the trial court passed a decree for possession against the defendants.

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly filed an appeal challenging the decree of the trial court. The plaintiffs filed cross-objections against part of the order rejecting their claim for possession on the ground of illegal subletting or transfer of tenancy. After careful reappreciation of the evidence the appellate bench of the Small Causes came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved that they required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide and also confirmed the finding on the issue of hardship. The appellate bench, however, rejected the cross-objections and held that the transfer of shares by the shareholders of the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 and his sons did not amount to illegal transfer or assignment of tenancy. In view of these findings, the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court dismissed the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the suit was filed only by two of the three co-owners without the consent of the third co-owner. The third co-owner was opposed to the filing of the suit. Two of the three co-owners were not competent to file the suit without the concurrence and consent of the third. Counsel for the plaintiffs contesting the contention submitted that as the third co-owner was joined as a party defendant to the suit by the remaining co-owners was perfectly lega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document