( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this revision application under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Rent Act") and challenged the impugned judgment and decree of eviction dated 1. 8. 2002 passed by the Appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, ahmedabad in favour of the respondents- landlords setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes court, Ahmedabad dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-landlords for possession on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri Shukla appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Appellate Bench of the small Causes Court, Ahmedabad misconstrued the important document i. e. partnership deed Ex. 168. According to his submission, there are three most important clauses in partnership deed ex. 168, they are clause Nos. 7 to 9. Mr. Shukla submitted that if clause 7 of the partnership deed Ex. 168 was read in isolation, then the Appellate Bench would not have committed error in passing the decree of eviction against the petitioners on the ground of subletting. His submission was that the Appellate Bench has committed a grave error in reading three clauses i. e. clause Nos. 7 to 9 together and came to the conclusion that there was no tenancy right created in favour of the partnership firm. He submitted that when two constructions of the partnership deed at Ex. 168 were possible and one of which will give effect to all the clauses therein while the other will render one or more of them nugatory, it is the former that should be adopted on the principle expressed in the maxim "ut res magis valeat quam pereat". Relying upon the judgment of the honble Supreme Court in the case of radha SUNDAR DUTTA Vs. MOHD. JAHADUR RAHIM reported in AIR 1959 sc 24, Mr. Shukla submitted that this court can always reconsider partnership deed at Ex. 168 in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 29 (2) of the Act. Partnership deed Ex. 168 is produced by the respondents-landlords along with reply affidavit at Annexure-C, running page 160 of this petition, therefore, I would not like to reproduce those three relevant clauses viz. Clause Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the partnership deed. Suffice it to say that the appellate Bench, in its detailed order running into 86 typed pages, considered all the three clauses individually and collectively in paras 39 and 40 and came to the conclusion that it is impossible for them to hold that the assets, as described in para 7 of Ex. 168 includes the tenancy rights of the suit shop.

( 3 ) WHILE arriving at the aforesaid conclusion the Appellate Bench also considered counter-foils of the rent receipts produced at Ex. 101, 102 and 103, which were considered by the learned Trial Judge for coming to the conclusion that Shah medical Stores-Partnership firm was a tenant of the suit premises. The Appellate bench also considered those three counterfoils of the rent receipts at Ex. 101, 102, and 103. While considering those three documents, the Appellate Bench also considered the evidence of Shri bipinkumar Kumarpal Ex. 150 examined by the landlords, who had explained in his evidence that defendant No. 2-Amratlal mohanlal came to his residence in July, 1978 and inquired about his father-Shri vinodbhai and at that time, he told him that his father has gone out of house. He, therefore, wanted to see the accounts of rent, therefore, asked him to show the counter-foils of the rent receipts. Thereupon he (Bipin) took him (Amratlal) on the meda (mezzanine floor) and gave him the counter-foils and the rent receipts for his verification. Then, he went down for bringing water and, thereafter tea for amritlal. When he was coming within five minutes with cup of tea, at that time he saw Amratlal removing the name of ramanlal Mangaldas from counter-foils of the rent receipts. Thereupon, he snatched away those counter-foils from Amratlal. He had produced counterfoil of