JUDGMENT:- These two Civil Revision Applications have been filed against the judgment and order dated 26th October, 2007 passed by the Ad-Hoc District Judge, Nasik, in Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2006. The Civil Revision Application No. 113 of 2008 has been preferred by the landlords while the Civil Revision Application No. 661 of 2009 has been preferred by the tenant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as 'landlords' and 'tenant'.

2. The landlords purchased the suit property from the earlier owner on 23rd February, 2000. The landlords issued a notice on 23rd May, 2000 to the tenant calling upon him to pay arrears of rent from September, 1999. The landlords also contended that they required the premises for their own use and, therefore, terminated the tenancy.

3. The tenant did not reply to this notice. In the circumstances, the landlords instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 1284 of 2000 on 17th October, 2000. The contentions raised in the plaint were:

(i) that the tenant had committed a default in payment of rent;

(ii) that the suit premises were required by the landlords bona fide and;

(iii) that the suit premises were not in use for more than six months.

4. The tenant denied the claim made by the landlords by filing his written statement. He contended that he was not a defaulter as he had, in fact, paid rent to the erstwhile landlord upto August, 2000. He further contended that ample space was available to the landlords and, therefore, there was no need to pass a decree on the ground of bona fide requirement. The tenant also denied that the suit premises were not being used by him.

5. The suit was decreed to the extent that the tenant was directed to pay rent of Rs. 2,160/- to the landlords. This was the rent payable from April, 2000 to April, 2006. However, the case of the landlords that the tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from 1st September, 1999 was not accepted. The landlords’ contention that they required the suit premises bona fide for their own use and enjoyment was not believed.

6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the landlords preferred an Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2006. The Appeal was decided on 26th October, 2007 by allowing it partly. The suit was partly decreed to the extent that the tenant was directed to vacate the suit premises in his possession on the first floor within a period of three months. The plaintiffs were granted liberty to erect a steel/iron staircase on appurtenant premises to secure access to the upstairs premises. However, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial Court that the tenant was not in arrears of rent.

7. Mr. Haridas appearing for the landlords submits that the Appellate Court has passed a partial decree on an erroneous ground. He points out that the landlords had sought ejectment of the tenant from four rooms on the ground floor of the building which they owned. Instead of passing a decree on those terms, the Appellate Court had directed that the tenant should be evicted from two rooms on the first floor. He submits that this was not what was sought by the landlords and, therefore, the matter would have to be remanded for a fresh hearing.

8. Mr. Sathaye appearing for the tenant concedes that the description of the premises from which the tenant was sought to be ejected, as contained in the plaint, is four rooms on the ground floor and, therefore, the question of evicting the tenant from the two rooms on the higher floor did not arise. He submits that, in fact, the tenant has filed this Civil Revision Application for the same reasons apart from the contention that the landlords had sufficient space available to themselves and did not bona fide require the suit premises which were in occupation of the tenant.

9. I have perused the order of the Appellate Court and I find that the Appellate Court has committed a grave injustice. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document