JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Facts:

There are three applicants; they are the tenants. There are five respondents; they are the landlords. The landlords filed R.A.E. Suit No. 859 of 2002 for eviction, on these grounds: (i) arrears of rent (ii) sub-letting (iii) additions and alternations, and (iv) availability of alternative accommodation. But when the suit went for trial, the landlords gave up the last two grounds and proceeded with the first two grounds-that is, arrears of rent and subletting. The third applicant-defendant is said to be the sub-lessee.

2. On 26th February 2010, the trial Court decreed the suit on merits. Aggrieved, all the defendants filed Appeal No. 199 of 2010 before the Appellant Bench of the Small Cause Court, Bombay. But it dismissed the appeal on 05th September 2012. Further aggrieved, the applicants have filed this Civil Revision Application.

Submissions:

Applicants:

3. Shri Parab, the learned counsel for the applicants-tenants, has submitted that the husband of the first applicant and father of the second applicant was the original tenant. He died on 28th September 2000. Though the statutory notice was issued in July 1999, by the time the landlords initiated the eviction proceedings in April 2002, the original tenant died. Therefore, the landlords, according to Shri Parab, ought to have issued a fresh statutory notice to the original tenant's legal representatives. In other words, notice issued to a dead tenant would not bind his legal representatives who were sought to be evicted.

4. On the second issue, that is sub-letting, Shri Parab contends that the third applicant is none other than the deceased original tenant's nephew, being his younger brother's son. As the third applicant's parents died young, he had been under the care and protection of the original tenant, that is his paternal uncle. Even after his uncle's death, the nephew continued to be with his uncle's family: applicant nos. 1 and 2.

5. In this context, Shri Parab has also pointed out that even the ration card of the deceased tenant's family reflects the third applicant's name. Despite all the evidence the applicants have placed on record, both the Courts below have ignored that evidence and concluded contrary to the facts about subletting.

6. Then, on the third issue, that is permission under section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvements, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,1971 ("1971 Act"), Shri Parab contends that the landlords secured permission from the Competent Authority against the original tenant, but they used that permission only after his death-that is, against his legal representative. Thus, Shri Parab asserts that the landlords ought to have secured fresh permission under Section 22 of the 1971 Act, against the original tenant's legal heirs, as was the case with the statutory notice.

7. Besides, Shri Parab has submitted that the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court has not considered the issue about the permission under Section 22 in its proper perspective. To emphasise, what Shri Parab calls, the Appellate Bench's omission in adjudication, he has drawn my attention to the trial Court's findings. According to him, the trial Court noted the fact that the applicants have raised a specific issue about the lack of permission under section 22. But the Appellate Bench, he points out, has simply ignored the applicants' specific objection. So it has considered that issue of permission in an erroneous perspective. To support his contentions, Shri Parab has relied on Laxmi Ram Pawar v. Sitabai Balu Dhotre, (2011) AIR SC 450.

Respondents:

8. Ms. Pratibha, the learned counsel for the respondents landlords, has contended that the Courts below have rendered concurrent findings and this Court may not interfere with them while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, specifically, under Section 115 of CPC. She has also submitted that on each issue framed, both the trial Court and the Appellate Bench have rendered clear, elaborate, and