ORAL JUDGMENT :- The revision application is filed by the original plaintiffs while the contempt petition is filed by the original defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed by their original title.

2. Admitted facts are that the plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit premises admeasuring 629 sq.ft on the ground floor of the Korde House situated at Thane. The defendant was admittedly the tenant in the suit premises. The building was more than 100 years old and was in dilapidated condition. The Municipal Corporation had issued a notice for demolition of the said building on the ground that it was in dilapidated condition and it was dangerous for the human life to continue the same. The plaintiffs issued notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy on two grounds, firstly, that the plaintiffs were residing in a small house, which was not sufficient for their requirements. Their son had completed M.B.B.S. and was doing post-graduation for M.D. He was married and his wife Mrs. Vanita was also M.B.B.S. and was proceeding with further education. They wanted to open their own dispensary. Korde house was a small, old and in dilapidated condition and was required to be demolished. Therefore, they wanted to demolish that house and to construct a new building for self occupation where they could reside and where their son and daughter-in-law could start practice. The defendant refused to vacate the premises unless alternative accommodation was provided to him. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed suit under section 16(1 )(g) and (k) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act for eviction and possession on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for self occupation of the landlords and for immediate purpose of demolition as ordered by the Municipal Authority. The defendant contested the suit. While admitting that the building was in dilapidated condition, the defendant denied the reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal use. He also contended that the landlords are bound to provide him alternate accommodation before he was required to vacate the premises and he should be assured that they would provide permanent accommodation in the building, which would be constructed after demolition of the old building.

3. After hearing the evidence for both the parties, the learned trial Court upheld the plea of the plaintiffs on both the grounds and passed the decree for eviction and possession and rejected claim of the defendant that the plaintiffs were bound to provide alternate accommodation to him. The defendant challenged the said judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2003. The defendant admitted that taking into consideration dilapidated and dangerous condition of the old building not only the plaintiffs but he himself had also vacated the premises and shifted elsewhere and he contended that the plaintiffs were making construction of new building and, therefore, the plaintiffs should be directed to provide him alternate accommodation in the new building as a tenant. Defendant also filed Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2004 seeking such a direction. However, on 17-3-2004 that writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to make appropriate application before the Appellate Court to get a flat earmarked in the building being constructed by the landlord. In view of this defendant made an application before the trial Court and on 13th April, 2004 plaintiffs filed written undertaking and reserved the flat on the second floor of the proposed building admeasuring approximately 67.12 sq.mtrs. equivalent to 722 sq. ft. built up area. Thereafter, on 31st July, 2004 modified undertaking was filed contending that due to changes by the Municipal Corporation, area of the flat on the second floor was changed to 63.56 sq. mtrs. equal to 684.16 sq. ft. and they agreed to reserve that flat for the defendant. This undertaking was without prejudice to the contentions and grounds in civil suit and to the effect that if the appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document