ORDER :- The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 265 of 1966 against the defendants for recovering possession of the suit premises on the grounds that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the original tenants, had unlawfully sub-let a part of the suit premises to the defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6, that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had constructed permanent structures in the suit premises without obtaining the permission of the plaintiffs in writing, that the defendants had committed waste in the suit premises, that the plainiffs require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their occupation and that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had split up the original tenancy in two parts. The plaintiffs also pleaded that the defendants had been denying the plaintiffs' title and have not been observing the terms of the tenancy.

2. The defendants in their turn challenged the validity of the statutory notice served by the plaintiffs upon the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

3. The learned Trial Judge held that the statutory notice served by the plaintiffs upon the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was valid. So far as unlawful subletting was concerned, he negatived the plaintiffs' allegation in that behalf. He, however, upheld the plaintiffs' contention that the defendants had constructed permanent structures in the suit premises without obtaining the plaintiffs' permission in writing. He negatived the plaintiffs' grounds of eviction that the defendants had committed waste in the suit premises, that the plaintiffs require reasonably and bona fide the suit premises for their occupation and that the defendants have committed breach of the terms of the tenancy. Next he found that the plaintiffs had not proved that the defendants had committed waste in the suit premises. In view of his finding on the plaintiffs' ground of eviction relating to the construction of permanent structures by the defendants in the suit premises, he passed in favour of the plaintiffs decree for possession.

4. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 6 challenged the decree in Civil Appeal No. 189 of 1969 which they filed before the District Court. The defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 challenged that decree in Civil Appeal No. 194 of 1969 which they filed in the District Court. Both the appeals were heard together by the learned Appellate Judge. He allowed both the appeals, set aside the decree for possession passed by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The findings recorded by the learned Appellate Judge are as follows:- The defendants have not constructed any permanent structures in the suit premises. There is no unlawful sub-letting of a part of the suit premises. The defendants have not committed any waste in the suit premises. The plaintiffs do not reasonably and bona fide require the suit premises for their occupation. The defendants had not denied the plaintiffs' title nor have they committed any breach of the terms of the tenancy.

5. Those two appellate decrees are challenged by the plaintiffs in these two Civil Revision Applications. Since they arise out of one suit and require examination of common contentions in light of the evidence on record and in light of the findings recorded by the Courts below. I decide them by a common judgment.

6. Mr. Oza, appearing for the plaintiffs, has raised before me the following six contentions.

1. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have unlawfully sub-let a part of the suit premises or assigned their interest in the suit premises to the defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

2. The defendants have constructed permanent structures in the suit premises.

3. The defendants have committed waste in the suit premises.

4. The plaintiffs require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their occupation.

5. The defendants have committed breach of the terms of the tenancy.

6. The defendants have split up the tenancy and rendered themselves liable to be evicted from the suit premises.

* * *

39. The t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document