1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. .

2. Revision Application is filed by the original defendant nos.1 and 3, who are the tenants on the open suit plot situated at Panchavati belonging to the original plaintiffs, who are the respondent nos.1 and 2 before this Court. The suit plot was leased out to one Raghosheth Tambe predecessor of the defendants under the lease deed dated 7-12-1970. The lease period commenced from 1-1-1971. It was for a period of 30 years and the annual rent was Rs.751/- per year plus education cess of Rs.82.50 paise. Rent was required to be paid in advance every year. After death of original tenant Raghosheth, his legal representatives continued to be tenants. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 1985 on 20-7-1985. It was alleged that the defendant no.1 had paid the rent upto 31st December, 1982. However, the defendants were in arrears of rent from 1-1-1983. Notice was issued on 1-12-1982 by the plaintiffs to the defendants demanding arrears of rent and vacant possession of the suit plot. There was no response. Again a notice was issued on 23-7-1984 but still there was no response. It was contended that the defendant nos.1 to 3 were thus, defaulters in payment of the rent. It was also contended that they had inducted defendant no.4 as subtenant in respect of plot admeasuring 44 X 100 ft. and defendant no.5 as sub-tenant on piece of plot admeasuring 12 ft. X 20 ft. Thus, there was contravention of 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. It was also contended that the plaintiff required the suit plot for reasonable and bonafide requirement of the trust to which the property belongs. On these three grounds, plaintiff sought decree for eviction and for possession.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant nos.1 to 3. They admitted to have received the notice but according to them they had already made payment in 1982 and they had sent money orders in 1984 as well as in 1985 but the same were not accepted. They also contended that as per the terms of the contract, the tenant could make construction and sublet the constructed premises. As the defendant nos.1 to 3 did not have sufficient funds for construction, they had taken funds from the defendant no.4 and with consent of Mahant Ramlakhandas plot was sublet. Defendant nos.4 and 5 also contested the suit by contending that the Mahant Ramlakhandas had consented for leasing out premises and also for construction of room, which is made by the defendant no.5.

4. The learned trial Court rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that they reasonably and bonafide required the suit plot. However, the learned trial Court held that defendant nos.1 to 3 were defaulters and they had also violated terms of the contract by subletting the premises. In the result, suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Against that the original defendant nos.1 to 4 preferred Civil Appeal No.334 of 2001 while defendant no.5 vacated the plot. Appeal came to be dismissed. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court on both the counts. Therefore, the original defendant nos.1 and 3 have preferred present Revision Application.

5. It is clear from the record that there are concurrent findings of the facts of both the Courts below. Admittedly, the lease agreement was for a period of 30 years and rent was to be paid annually. There is no dispute that the rent was paid upto the end of 1982 and receipts were also issued. According to the plaintiffs, rent was not paid from 1-1-1983 and therefore, two notices were issued. Notice dated 23-7-1984 Exhibit 109 was issued and it was received by the defendants but the payment was not made. Suit was filed in July, 1985. Admittedly, the issues were framed on 17-7-1992 and the defendant nos.1 to 3 had deposited an amount of Rs.4167.50 paise towards the arrears of rent on 6-2-1987. Thereafter an amount of Rs.10,835.50 was deposited by the defendant nos.1 to 3 with permission of the Court on 3.3.2000. Admit