1. This writ petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the appellate Court in an appeal filed by the landlords under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act).

2. The respondents are owners of House No.54 situated at Itwari, Nagpur. Two shop blocks on the ground floor of aforesaid house were let out to the predecessor of the petitioners in the year 1970. The rent payable was Rs.215/per month. As the landlords were in need of the tenanted premises for carrying on their business, eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide need. According to the landlords who were two brothers, they were carrying on their business in a shop having area of 3 ft. x 9 ft. owned by one Rajendrakumar Parmar. Both the brothers were doing separate business in half portion of said premises. As they wanted to expand their business and as they also desired to settle their sons, on 26-3-2002 notice came to be issued to the tenant for vacating the suit premises. Thereafter the landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No.261/2002 under provisions of Section 16(1) (g) of the said Act. The claim as made was opposed by the tenant on the ground that the need of the landlords was not bonafide. It was stated that two sons of the plaintiff were employed elsewhere and further the tenant was wholly dependent on the income that was received by doing business in the suit premises. The trial Court by its judgment dated 11.2.2005 held in favour of the landlords and decreed the suit. In appeal preferred by the tenant, the first appellate Court upheld the finding of the trial Court regarding bonafide need of the landlords. It, however, held that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant if he was evicted from the suit premises. It was observed that as the landlords themselves were not in a position to get alternate accommodation, greater hardship would be caused to the tenant.

3. The landlords being aggrieved by aforesaid judgment filed Writ Petition No.4926/2006, while the tenant being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Court as regards bonafide need of the landlords filed Writ Petition No.3303/2008. Learned Single Judge by judgment dated 10-8-2010 held that the aspect as to whether the need of the landlords would be satisfied by directing partial eviction of the tenant from a portion of the suit premises had not been considered by the first appellate Court. Hence, the proceedings were remanded to the Small Causes Court for recording a finding on the aspect of comparative hardship and as to whether partial eviction of the tenant would satisfy the need of the landlords. After remand, the parties did not lead any further evidence. The trial Court held that the need of the landlords would be satisfied if half portion on the front side could be made available to the landlords for carrying on their business. Hence, by order dated 28.2.2011 the landlords were held entitled for possession of half portion of the suit blocks. The landlords, therefore, challenged the said order before the appellate Court, while the tenant filed cross objections challenging the decree in respect of half portion of the suit premises. By impugned judgment dated 20-12-2013, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross objections filed by the tenant. A decree for eviction in respect of the entire premises was passed in favour of the landlords.

4. Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the question as to whether a judgment passed under Section 34 of the said Act could be challenged by the unsuccessful party by filing revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or whether the same could be assailed under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India had been referred for consideration by learned Single Judge to a larger bench. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the order or refe