The heirs of a deceased tenant lack standing to contest an eviction order under rent law unless they can demonstrate a direct legal relationship to the tenant and relevant evidence supporting their claims.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. Sathaye, J.

1. By this application filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short) the purported legal heirs/representatives of original Defendant/Tenant are challenging the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.70 of 1993 by III Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Malegaon, by which the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.67 of 1986 dated 31.03.1993 by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malegaon, is set aside. By the impugned Decree, the said suit is decreed directing the original Defendant/Tenant to vacate the suit premises.

2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this revision application, are as under. Original Plaintiffs filed the said suit under provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Bombay Rent Act’, for short), for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and for mesne profit from the original Defendant (Ramughraha Ramcharita Tiwari) on the grounds of personal and bona fide requirement, erection of permanent structure without permission of the landlord and nuisance. The Plaintiffs contended that the Defendant is a monthly tenant @ Rs.155/- per month. The original Defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that he has not made any permanent construction nor causing any nuisance. The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit and fixed standard rent @ Rs.155/- p.m., directing the Defendant to deposit rent up to date. The Plaintiffs filed the aforesaid appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit. During pendency of the appeal, Plaintiff No.1 expired and her legal heirs are brought on record. The Appeal Court, initially dismissed the appeal by Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2002. The Plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No.858 of 2004, which was allowed by this Court under Order dated 06.07.2006, remanding the matter to the Appeal Court for fresh consideration only on the issue of bona fide requirement. The appeal was reconsidered and by the impugned Judgment and Decree, eviction is ordered. In these circumstances, the original Defendant initially filed writ petition. However, it was thereafter converted into present Civil Revision Application. Ad-interim stay to eviction was granted on 08.06.2007 which was confirmed on 20.06.2007, when the matter was admitted.

3. During pendency of the revision application in this Court, original Defendant expired and his purported legal heirs/representatives are brought on record. During pendency of the revision, one of the legal heirs of original landlord also expired and his further legal heirs are brought on record.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned counsel for the Revision-Applicants, Mr. Joshi submitted as under. That after the remand of appeal, no fresh evidence is led. That the Appeal Court on re-appreciation of the same evidence has decreed the suit. He submitted that there is no evidence about partition among the family members of the landlord and apparently due to confusion about whether the building is three storey or four storey, certain admissions given by the landlord were not properly considered. That in paragraph no.38 of the Appeal Court Judgment, such confusion is apparent. That earlier, both the Courts were in favour of the Tenant. Relying heavily on an additional affidavit filed by Revision Application No.1(b) (Mahendra Ramkisan Tiwari), it is submitted that there are many subsequent events in the form of construction of other property, receipts of other rooms from other Tenants in the suit building and construction of addition