JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The landlords have impugned the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court, passed in Civil Appeal No.24 of 2007, dtd. 15/6/2016.

3. The facts giving rise to the dispute were that the suit premises was used to run a hotel. The landlord purchased the suit premises (20x20) ft with tenant Sukhalal (for short, the tenant). He had been the tenant since 1975. The tenant was unmarried. The respondent nos.1 to 3 are the sons of three sisters of the tenant, and the deceased respondent No. 4 was his mother. It was a specific case of the landlords that after purchasing the suit premises, they and the earlier landlord met the tenant and told him that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit premises. The suit premises was kept unused from 1994. The tenant was of their caste, his physical condition was deteriorating, and he was living there alone. Hence, the landlord did not ask him to vacate the suit premises. In his last days, he was staying alone in the suit premises. After his death, respondent nos. 1 to 3 started cleaning the suit premises and had held the possession.

4. The