JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. By this civil revision application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 29th September 2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.771 of 2013 dismissing the appeal filed by the applicants and upholding the impugned judgment and decree dated 16th March 2013 passed by the learned Additional Judge of Small Cause Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.572 of 2002 thereby decreeing the civil suit filed by the respondent no.1. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this application are as under :-

2. The applicants were the original defendant nos.1(b) to 1(e) before the trial Court. The respondent no.1 herein was the original plaintiff. The respondent nos.2 and 3 were the original defendant nos.2(a) & 2(b) before the trial Court. In the latter part of the judgment, the parties are described as per their original status before the trial Court.

3. It was the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing City Survey No.411/A, Ravivar Peth, Pune was owned by the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2(a) & 2(b). There was no partition of the suit property effected amongst the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2(a) & 2(b).

4. It was the case of the plaintiff that the predecessor in title of the defendant no.1 Ashok Kumar Nemichand Parmar succeeded as tenant to the shop premises on the ground floor admeasuring 46.451 sq.mtrs. in the building constructed on the property bearing CTS No.411/A situated at Ravivar Peth, Pune (for the sake of convenience referred to as "suit property").

5. It was the case of the plaintiff that the predecessor in title of the defendant no.1 Ashok Kumar Nemichand Parmar succeeded as the tenant to the said premises on demise of his predecessor Nemichand Hirachand Parmar. Ashok Kumar Nemichand Parmar died on 11th September 2002 leaving behind his mother, wife, sons and son of his deceased brother Indra Raj Nemichand Parmar being the defendant nos.1(a) to 1(e) respectively as the only heirs and successors. It was the case of the plaintiff that the tenancy of the defendant no.1 was a monthly tenancy commencing from the first day of each Gregorian calendar and expiring on expiry of last day thereof. The rent payable by the defendant no.1 was Rs.100/- per month, exclusive of taxes, cess and other charges. It was the case of the plaintiff that the predecessor of the defendant no.1 till his death did not use nor the defendant no.1 had been using the said premises for the purposes for which the same was let out and had changed the user thereof. The premises was given for the purpose of running "sarafi"shop however the business of hire purchase of articles required for any ceremony such as marriage was unauthorisedly conducted therein. According to the plaintiff, the original defendant no.1 had also attempted to encroach upon the verandah in front of the suit premises by putting up construction. The original defendant no.1 had also put up the permanent construction without consent or permission from any of the landlords. According to the plaintiff, the entire property had been rendered dangerous as a result of heavy, permanent and unauthorised construction made by the defendant no.1.

6. The plaintiff has two sons by names Parag Sharad Tapray and Kedar Sharad Tapray. Both are married. The locality of the suit property was the business locality where "sarafi" business and market has flourished. It was the case of the plaintiff that sons of the plaintiff had been in the business of the plaintiff since last 5 years on the date of filing the suit and have acquired necessary technical knowledge. The plaintiff accordingly required the possession of the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for the purpose of commencing the business of his sons of goldsmith and jewellers therein. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was a salaried person and did not have any other income or money to acqui