1] Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2] This Civil Revision Application is directed against the following orders:

(i) Order dated 14 January 2015 in Review Application No. 3 of 2014 in Appeal No. 709 of 2008 made by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court (Appeal Court);

(ii) Order dated 23 October 2012 in Appeal No. 709 of 2008 made by the Appeal Court; and

(iii) Judgment and decree dated 8 October 2007 made in R.A.D. Suit No. 678 of 2001 by the Small Causes Court (Trial Court).

3] The aforesaid impugned orders have declared the respondent No.1, the plaintiff in R.A.D. Suit No. 678 of 2001 (Patwardhan) to be the tenant in respect of the suit premises and the applicant herein, a rival claimant to the tenancy of the suit premises has been directed by a mandatory injunction to remove his lock upon the suit premises within four months from the date of decree. The permanent injunction as also been granted against the applicant from entering and using the suit premises without taking recourse to the due process of law.

4] The suit premises, in the present case, is Room No. E30, 3rd Floor, Tara Baug Estate, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Marg, Mumbai – 400 004, which were originally let out by the landlord, respondent No.2 (Shah) to Shri. Vishnu D. Dabak. The said Vishnu Damodar Dabak died on 28 February 1986. Thereafter, his son Janardhan continued to reside in the suit premises until the date of his demise, i.e., 20 February 1998. There is dispute between Patwardhan and the applicant (Joshi) as to the claim of tenancy in respect of suit premises.

5] The applicant (Joshi) claims tenancy to the suit premises on the basis of Will as allegedly left behind by the tenant Janardhan. On the other hand, respondent No.1 (Patwardhan) claims tenancy on the basis that he is the member of Janardhan's family, who was residing with Janardhan in the suit premises, at the time of demise of Janardhan on 20 February 1998. Patwardhan instituted R.A.D. Suit No. 678 of 2001, which has since been decreed in his favour by the Trial Court. The Appeal and Review against the same have been dismissed by the Appeal Court. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

6] Mr. Jayesh Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant, made the following two submissions in support of the Civil Revision Application:

(a) The finding that respondent No.1 (Patwardhan) was a member of deceased tenant's family and was residing with the deceased tenant in the suit premises at the time of his demise, is vitiated by perversity; and

(b) The finding that the right of tenancy cannot be bequeathed by the tenant by Will in favour of a stranger, is contrary to the ruling of the Apex Court in case of Gaiv Dinsha Irani & Ors. Vs. Tehmtan Irani & Ors., 2015 (2) ALL MR 456 (SC).

7] Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (Patwardhan) submitted that in this case, there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the Appeal Court that Patwardhan was indeed a member of Janardhan's family, at the time of demise of Janardhan. Such findings of fact are amply borne by the evidence on record and there is absolutely no perversity involved. Further, there is catena of decisions directly under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control, 1947 Act (1947 Act) that statutory tenancy cannot be bequeathed in favour of a stranger. The ruling in case of Irani (supra), is clearly distinguishable, as the Apex Court was not dealing with tenancy under the Rent Act, but rather with tenancy created by the Bombay Municipal Corporation under the legislation constituting it, where there was no statutory provision favouring transfer only to family members of the deceased tenant. Mr. Godbole submitted that there is absolutely no jurisdictional error in making of the impugned orders and therefore, this Court ought not to interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction under the Article 227 of the Consti