Revisional jurisdiction permits interference with perverse appellate findings ignoring tenant's admissions of unauthorized substantial alterations, spouse's suitable residence acquisition, and subjective nuisance to landlord-neighbour, confirming eviction.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. By this Civil Revision Application, filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), the Revision- Applicant/original Plaintiff No.2 is challenging the the Judgment and Decree dated 11.10.2013 passed in A-1 Appeal No.79/2011 alongwith Cross Objection No.2/2012 by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra). By the said impugned Judgment and Decree, the Appeal filed by the Defendants/Tenants challenging the decree of eviction was allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the Landlord challenging adverse findings, was rejected and the Judgment and Decree passed by Small Causes Court, Mumbai in R.A.E Suit No.400/1222 of 1985 (granting eviction) was set aside and the said suit was dismissed with costs.

2. The Revision-Applicant is original Plaintiff-Landlord and Respondents are legal heirs of original Defendants-Tenants.

3. Few facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under :

3.1. The Plaintiff-Landlord filed the said suit seeking eviction of the Defendants-Tenants from the suit flat which is Flat No.5, Second Floor, House No.139-T, Juhu Tara, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 049 which was let out on monthly rent of about Rs.520/- per month. The said suit was filed under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodgings House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘Bombay Rent Act’ for short) on the grounds of bona fide requirement, nuisance and annoyance, tenant committing acts contrary to the provisions of section 108 (o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and erection of permanent structure, acquisition of suitable residence, non-user and unlawful sub-letting i.e under section 13 (1) (a), 13 (1) (b),13 (1) (c), 13 (1) (e), 13 (1) (g), 13 (1) (k), 13 (1) (l) of Bombay Rent Act.

3.2. Plaintiff No.2-Landlord examined himself as P.W.1. The Plaintiffs examined their Architect as P.W.2, Court Commissioner as P.W.3, an employee working in the Office of Assistant Commissioner of Police and Public Information Officer as P.W.4 and Officer of Santacruz Police Station as P.W.5. The Defendants-tenants examined D.W.1 - son of Defendant No.1 as her Constituted Attorney. They also examined their Chartered Structural Engineer as D.W.2 and Assistant Manager working in Reliance Infrastructure as D.W.3.

3.3. The learned Trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence found that the grounds of bona-fide requirement, non-user and unlawful sub-letting were not proved by the landlord. However, the learned Trial Judge found that the grounds of nuisance and annoyance, tenant committing acts contrary to the provisions of section 108 (o) of the Transfer of Property Act and acquisition of suitable alternate residence are proved by the landlords. Therefore, the suit was decreed directing the Respondents to vacate the suit premises. The Defendants-Tenants filed the said Appeal in which the Plaintiff- Landlord filed Cross Objection, challenging adverse findings given by the Trial Court.

3.4. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, on re- appreciation of evidence, confirmed the findings about bona fide requirement, non-user and unlawful sub-letting. However, the Appellate Bench reversed finding of the Trial Court on the grounds of nuisance and ann