JUDGMENT :

I. Introduction:

The owners want to recover leased property: a piece of vacant land. They file a suit for ejectment on various grounds. All the way up to High Court, they lose the suit. After the unsuccessful first round litigation, within three months—but twenty years after their first suit—the owners issue a quit notice and, again, file the second ejectment suit. Among the many grounds, the principal are rent default and bona fide requirement.

2. The trial Court decrees the suit. The tenant and the subtenant file two appeals; both dismissed, they file Civil Revision Applications. In these CRAs they raise the following issues:

(a) The tenants do admit there accumulated certain rent arrears when the first-round eviction proceedings were pending. But does their recovery in the second suit stand barred by res judicata and Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (“the Bombay Rent Act”)?

(b) Can the revisional Court reappreciate evidence on the rent default and bona fide requirement?

(c) The State Government has, pending the appeal, barred the change of user of the lands, say, being used as filling stations. Does this bar affect the owners’ right to recover possession?

(d) Recovery of open land falls under Section 12 (1) (i) of the Bombay Rent Act. Under that provision, comparative hardship is not an element of consideration. That, however, is the requirement under Section 12 (1) (g) of the Act. But here, dealing with an open land, the Courts below have considered the relative hardship, too. Does this extraneous consideration vitiate the entire adjudication?

II. Facts:

(a) Procedural History:

3. There are two Civil Revision Applications. M/s K. B. Lohoti & Company (“the Firm”) has filed CRA No.561 of 2018; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (“the Corporation”) filed CRA No.562 of 2018. They both filed their respective CRAs against a common set of respondents (“the Owners”).

4. To be specific, the Owners filed RCS No.149 of 1998 against the Corporation and the Firm for eviction. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik, through its Judgment and decree, dt.29.09.2005, allowed that suit. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed RCA No.237 of 2005, and the Firm filed RCA No.234 of 2005. Through a common judgment, dt.11.12.2013, the District Judge-I, Nashik, dismissed both the appeals. Then, the Corporation and the Firm filed CRA Nos.562 of 2018 and 561 of 2018, respectively.

(b) Facts of the Case:

5. The respondents in both the CRAs are the owners; they claim that the suit property is their joint-family property. Their ancestors leased it out to M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd., the Corporation’s predecessor. It was in 1965. The property, then, was said to be a piece of open land at Nashik Road, Nashik. Later, in 1976, the Burmah Shell was taken over by the Government of India to form Bharat Refineries Limited, later renamed as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, BPCL. Thus, the Corporation is the licencee.

(c) First Round Eviction Proceedings:

6. In 1977, the Owners filed RCS No.754 of 1977 against the Corporation for eviction. It was on the grounds of bona fide requirement, erection of unauthorized permanent structures, change of user, and unlawful sub-letting. In March 1985, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The dismissal was on all grounds. Aggrieved, the Owners filed Civil Appeal No. 265 of 1985 but without success; the appeal was dismissed in July 1986. Further, aggrieved, the Owners filed Writ Petition No.4985 of 1986. Yet again, they failed. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 09.02.1998.

(d) Present Proceedings:

7. In less than three months, that is on 01.05.1998, the Owners issued a “notice for possession” to the Corporation. Later, they filed RCS No.149 of 1998. This time the Owners sought the Corporation’s eviction on the grounds of bona fide requ