M.S. SONAK, J.

1. This petition is directed against the orders 17 March 1989 and 7 October 1995 dismissing petitioners suit seeking eviction of the respondents from the suit premises i.e. gala admeasuring 37' x 10' at Station Road, Thane.

2. The petitioners are the owners of municipal house no. 17381 at Station Road, Thane. On the ground floor, there are, in all, four galas, out of which one of the galas was let out by the petitioners to Shri Shantilal Dave ('Dave') for monthly rent of Rs. 22.79. On each side of the suit premises, are the galas owned and possessed by the petitioners. In the year 1974, Shantilal Makanji Dave assigned tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises to Prabhulal Khimji Thakkar ('Thakkar'). This led to the petitioner instituting a suit against Dave and Thakkar alleging unlawful assignment. The suit was however dismissed. On the basis of evidence led in the present proceedings as well as the statement made by the petitioner before the appeal Court, it is safe to proceed upon the premise that the petitioner accepted that Thakkar is presently the tenant in respect of the suit premises.

3. The petitioner instituted regular civil suit no. 1349 of 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Thane (trial Court) seeking eviction of Dave, Thakkar as also Arora and Shah (sub tenants) on the grounds of default in payment of rents, unlawful subletting and reasonable and bonafide requirement. The suit was dismissed by judgment and order dated 17 March 1989. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the District Judge, Thane (appeal Court) on 7 October 1995. Hence the present petition.

4. Mr. Karande, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that material evidence has been ignored both on the aspect of bonafide and reasonable requirement as well as unlawful subletting. Besides, the legal position concerning both the aspects has also been ignored. As a result, the two Courts have applied incorrect tests in determining the issue of unlawful subletting and bonafide requirement. For all these reasons, Mr. Karande submitted that there is error of jurisdiction and perversity in the making of the impugned orders. Mr. Karande, referred to several decisions, some of which shall be considered in the course of this judgment.

5. Mr. Datar, the learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts and there is no perversity in the record of the same. Mr. Datar submitted that the petitioners have several other business premises, including three adjacent to the suit premises. Accordingly, the need of the petitioners can neither be reasonable nor bonafide. On the aspect of unlawful subletting, Mr. Datar submitted that Thakkar, whilst retaining the possession of the suit premises had merely entered into partnership for carrying on business through the suit premises. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Others, (1987) 3 SCC 538, such arrangement, does not amount to subletting. Accordingly, Mr. Datar urged the dismissal of this petition.

6. Rival contentions now fall for determination.

7. At the outset, Mr. Karande made it clear that the ground of default in payment of rent was not being pressed. Further, Mr. Karande conceded that the matter will have to proceed on the basis that Thakkar had been accepted as the tenant in respect of the suit premises, in place of Dave. Even apart from such concession, Mr. Vinod Shah (son of the original petitioner Taralakshmi) deposed on 6 October 1987 that from 1974, Thakkar is a tenant of the suit premises. In the appeal Court, Mr. M.R. Patkar, appearing for the petitioners also made a submission that Thakkar was accepted as a tenant by the petitioners and there is no longer any dispute on that score. In the