( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by the original defendants under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts leading rise to this revision petition briefly stated are as under:-THE opponents-landlords filed Civil Suit No. 488 of 1962 against the petitioners in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Petlad for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the suit premises. The suit premises consist of an open land bearing City Tika No. 10/1 and Survey No. 116 and a part of survey No. 123 situate near Kasyabhais Utara in Petlad District Kaira. The opponents case was that they want the suit premises for their personal use and occupation. They required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal use and occupation. They are doing business in Petlad under the name and style of Harilal Bhikhabhai and Co. They have got business also at Ahmedabad Ranoli Navli etc. They are purchasing goods at Petlad for those businesses and consequently they are required to be stored at Petlad They have also got cars and consequently a garage is necessary for keeping those cars some of which are kept at Petlad. They therefore require the suit premises which consist of an open land for constructing a godown and a garage for the aforesaid purposes and thereby they want to occupy them for themselves

( 3 ) THE petitioners challenged the aforesaid material facts. Their version was that the landlords did not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the aforesaid purposes. They also contended that greater hardship would be caused to them by passing a decree for eviction than the hardship that would be caused to the opponents by refusing to pass a decree for eviction.

( 4 ) ISSUES were framed at Ex. 10 by the trial Court. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 which are material for our purposes were:- (2) Whether plaintiffs prove that they require the suit premises bona fide for their reasonable requirement ? (3) If yes whether greater hardship would be caused to the tenant by passing the decree for possession than to the landlords by refusing the decree for possession for the whole or part of the suit premises? issue No. 2 was decided against the plaintiffs-landlords. In view of that findings the learned trial Judge found that issue No. 3 did not survive. If that question arose for decision the area for one garage may be given to the plaintiffs-landlords as mentioned in para 15 of the judgment. The learned trial Judge in view of his findings dismissed the plaintiffs suit for possession. A decree for arrears of rent was passed. Rs. 141/per year were fixed to be the standard rent for the suit land.

( 5 ) AGAINST that judgment and decree the plaintiffs-landlords filed Appeal No. 289 of 1964 in the District Court at Nadiad. The defendants tenants filed cross-objections. The learned Extra Assistant Judge Nadiad who heard this appeal also recorded a finding that the plaintiffs-landlords did not require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their personal use and occupation. The trial Courts finding in that behalf has been confirmed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge. In view of that finding he found that point No. 2. for determination viz. whether greater hardship would be caused to the tenants by passing a decree for eviction than the hardship that would be caused to the landlords by refusing to pass it did not arise. He raised point No. 3 for determination viz. whether the plaintiffs-landlords required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for erection of a new building? He answered this point for determination in favour of the landlords and decreed the suit for possession and directed the defendants to hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs landlords on or before 30th April 1967 The decree regarding arrears of rent was confirmed. The defendants-tenants were further directed to pay mes