1. On 23rd January, 2018, the following order was made :

1. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, this Revision Application was heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. Learned counsel pointed out that on two previous occasions as well the matter was finally argued, however, on account of change in assignments, no Judgment could be delivered. Besides learned counsel pointed out that the original Eviction Suit has instituted in 1984 and litigation has been pending since last 32 years.

3. The arguments have been concluded and the mater is reserved for orders.

2. This revision application challenges the judgment and order dated 08.12.2014 made by the District Judge, Nandurbar (Appeal Court) allowing Civil Appeal no. 15/2008 instituted by respondent nos. 1A, 1B and 1C (tenants), thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.04.2008 made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar (Trial Court), which had ordered eviction of tenants from the suit premises on the ground that the suit premises were reasonably and bonafidely required by the applicants-landlords; on the ground that tenants had acquired alternate premises; and, on the ground that tenants had carried out permanent alterations to the suit tenanted property.

3. By the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2014, the Appeal Court, has infact held that the order of eviction made by the Trial Court is required to be upheld on all the aforesaid three grounds. However, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and order dated 17.04.2008 made by the Trial Court was set aside mainly on the ground that the applicants, in paragraph no. 9 of the application seeking eviction, had averred that the tenants, who were originally granted only half portion of the garage, which is one of the components of the suit tenanted property, removed the partition and encroached upon the balance half portion as well. Appeal Court, on the basis of such averments in paragraph no. 9 of the plaint has held that the suit as instituted, was a composite suit seeking eviction of the defendants from tenanted as well as encroached property and, therefore, such a suit, which was, not maintainable before the Civil Court exercising powers under the Bombay Rent Hotels and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Control Act), which is a special legislation, which deals with the issue of eviction by landlords of tenants from tenanted property only. On this sole ground, the appeal of tenants came to be allowed and eviction order made by the Trial Court came to be reversed. Hence, present revision application by the landlords.

4. Mr. Mantri, learned counsel for applicants submits that the pleadings in the plaint have been misconstrued by the Appeal Court. He submits that the pleadings in paragraph no. 9 of the plaint were in the context of permanent alterations undertaken by the tenants. In any case, he submits that the Appeal Court, has clearly erred in holding that this was the case of misjoinder of causes of action or that this was a composite suit and therefore, not maintainable. He submits that even assuming that the portion of the garage was not a part of the suit tenanted property, eviction decree could have always been made in respect of the suit tenanted property by excluding the portion of the garage which was encroached upon by the tenants. He submits that for last 30 years, the landlords have been agitating the issue of eviction and now, despite both the Courts concurrently holding that the grounds of eviction as contemplated under the Bombay Rent Control Act have been made out, the Appeal Court, exceeded jurisdiction in denying the relief to the applicants-landlords on the basis of technical plea of misjoinder of causes of action, which technical plea was not even made good by or on behalf of the tenants.

5. Mr. Mantri submits that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the Appeal Court to the effect that the need of applicants is