1. The present Revision Application has been filed by Petitioner Anil Gangekar who was Defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 1986 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 8. On death of some of the original plaintiffs, their legal heirs were brought on record. Respondent No.9 was original Defendant No.2 who was arrayed in the suit along with the present Applicant as tenant in the suit premises. The suit was decreed against the present Applicant and Respondent No.9 original Defendant No.2 (hereafter referred as "Defendants"). Respondent Nos.10, 11 and 12 were formally arrayed as Defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the suit by the Plaintiff as they were not available to sign the plaint when the suit was filed. I will refer to contesting Landlords as Plaintiffs.

2. The suit was brought by the Plaintiffs on various grounds but came to be decreed only on the ground of non use of the suit premises without reasonable cause, for the purpose for which the same were let for continuous period of six months preceding the date of suit (which was filed on 16th January 1986) under Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ("Bombay Rent Act" in brief), against Defendant No.1. The claim of the Plaintiff that suit premises were sublet to Defendant No.2 was not accepted by the trial Court. The Applicant Defendant No.1 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.87 of 2006. The Appeal came to be dismissed and cross-objections filed by the Plaintiffs were also dismissed. Against the Judgment and orders passed by the First Appellate Court, the present Revision Application has been filed by the Applicant-original Defendant No.1.

3. Brief narration of relevant facts for deciding the present Revision Application is necessary.

(A). The Plaintiff brought the suit inter-alia claiming that initially only ground floor of the suit property was let out to the Defendant for the business of "Khanawal" i.e. eating house. Subsequently, Defendant on 15th March 1979 executed written agreement and he was given upper portion of the suit property for running a lodge. As per the agreement, Defendant was to do the necessary construction but the ownership would remain of the Plaintiffs. Defendant had agreed to vacate suit premises in eleven months. From the suit property, ground floor was given only for the business of eating house. However, Defendant without taking any written permission from the Plaintiffs, closed the eating house and illegally started permit room of liquor in the suit premises. Defendant stopped using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let and changed the user. Notice was issued to the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 21st August 1985 seeking possession, but the same was not complied with. Thus the suit was brought.

(B). In the trial Court, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing Written Statement. It was claimed that Defendant No.2 was unnecessarily made party to the litigation. It was claimed that Defendant No.2 has nothing to do with the suit premises. Defendant denied that suit premises were given on rent only for running eating house and that without permission the eating house had been closed and that illegally liquor permit room had been started. It was denied that he was not using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let out. It was claimed that Defendant No.1 was using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was let out. Defendant No. 1 claimed that he had right to do any business in the suit premises.

(C). The trial Court referred to various issues which were raised before it. Now, the issue relevant, which is there for decision is only Issue No. 2 framed by the trial Court. The trial Court had framed this issue as follows:

"whether Plaintiffs proved that the suit premises had not been used for the purpose for which they were let out for continuous period for six months preceding the date of suit."

The issue was answered in affirmative. The trial Court considered the suit in the contex