( 1 ) ). This Revision Application was filed by Maheshbhai Mansukhbhai Mistry and Madhuben Mansukhbhai Mistry somewhere in November 2001. The arguments were heard in December 2001. However, at the end of the arguments learned advocate for the petitioner has indicated that the parties may try to settle the matter and therefore, the court may not pronounce the judgment. In view of the same, the judgment was not pronounced through arguments were already heard and concluded.

( 2 ) ). On reopening of the court after winter holidays both Mr. M. B. Gandhi learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. J. T. Trivedi learned advocate for the respondents indicated that as the parties could not settle the matter, the court may pronounce the judgment. That is how, I am now pronouncing the judgment.

( 3 ) ). Maheshbhai Mansukhbhai Mistri and others the petitioners-original defendants tenants have filed this revision application challenging the judgment and decree dated 3. 10. 2001 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1999. The Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad , has by its impugned judgment dismissed the appeal of the original defendants-petitioners and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15. 3. 1999 passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad in HRP Suit No. 1478 of 1991 filed by the original plaintiffs-Damodarbhai Valjibhai Mistry and others.

( 4 ) ). The facts giving rise to this revision application are as under:4. 1 There is a premises situated at Ahmedabad in the city of Ahmedabad in Khadia Ward No. 1 bearing survey No. 2479 and Municipal Census No. 1564 of Sidi pole (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises ). 4. 2 Damodar Valjibhai Mistry, plaintiff no. 1, Prabhubhai Valjibhai Mistri, the plaintiff no. 2, Vasudev Valjibhai Mistri, plaintiff no. 3 and Mahesh Narandas Mistri plaintiff no. 4 had filed a suit against Maheshbhai Mansukhlal Mistry defendant no. 1 and Madhuben Mansukhbhai Mistri defendant no. 2 the heirs of Mansukhbhai Karshandas Mistry who recently died. In the said suit it was stated that the plaintiff are the owners of the suit premises in question and originally Mansukhbhai Narandas Mistri was a tenant of the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 25. 00. . As the defendants failed and neglected to pay the rent for last 6 months and the defendants have not paid the rent from 1. 1. 1991, the defendants are in arrears of rent and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The plaintiffs are also staying in the premises situated at Khadia ward no. 1 bearing survey no. 2527 which is a very small premises and as the defendants are staying not in the suit premises they have already vacated and started staying in the premises at Isanpur, Ahmedabad. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed that the suit premises may be ordered to be vacated and possession may be ordered to be handed over to the plaintiffs and in that case no hardship will be caused to the defendants because the defendants have already vacated the suit premises in question. The said suit was filed somewhere on 18. 7. 1991. 4. 3 The defendants filed reply contesting the suit and stated that the standard rent of the suit premises is Rs. 13. 00 p. m. The defendants denied the written statement that they are keeping the suit premises closed. It was stated that the closure of the suit premises was only casual. The plaintiffs have not demanded any rent in arrears and the plaintiffs have not given any notice and therefore, the suit may be dismissed.

( 5 ) ). Both the parties thereafter led evidence both oral and documentary before the Court and ultimately the Trial Court framed as many as 16 issues in this behalf. However, the Trial Court has held that the plaintiffs proved that the suit premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous