N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. Original plaintiff the landlord filed H.R.P. Suit No. 241 of 1986 before the Small Cause Court No. 10 at Ahmedabad against the applicants-tenants for possession of the suit premises on the grounds of breach of terms of tenancy, availability of alternative suitable accommodation to the tenant, change of user, unlawful subletting as well as reasonable and bona-fide requirement of the landlord. The Small Cause Court passed judgment and decree on 31st December 1999 directing the defendants-tenants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises within two months. The said decree and judgment was passed on the ground of breach of terms of tenancy, acquisition of suitable residence by the tenant and change of user. The rest of the grounds came to be rejected.

2. The tenants preferred Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2000 against the aforesaid judgment and decree. The said appeal came to be dismissed by appellate Bench of Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad on 15th October 2008. Against the said judgment and order, the original tenants have filed the present Revision Application invoking Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the `Bombay Rent Act' for sake of brevity).

3. The relevant facts may be set out. Respondent landlord had rented the suit premises to the applicant-tenant as per the conditions mentioned in the rent-note (Exh. 78). The suit premises consisted of a room, bathroom and latrine and an otta in the front. It was rented on monthly rent of Rs.27/- plus taxes to be paid by the tenant. According to the case of landlord, the premises was let out from residential purpose, but the tenant later on converted its use and started using the same exclusively for business. The plaintiff, therefore, on the ground of change of user, sought eviction of the tenant. Before the courts below, it was the contention of the tenant that the suit premises was given to be used for business purpose right from the creation of tenancy and it was so used from the beginning. It was contended that the respondent had applied to the Collector for permission to let the premises for non-residential purpose, and such permission was granted. The second ground pleaded for seeking eviction was that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation.

3.1 The defendant-tenant filed two written statements contesting the plaintiff's suit. First Written Statement was filed at Exh.8, in which the case put forth was that the suit premises was taken on rent by the predecessor for the purpose of business as well as for residence. It was denied that it was only for residence. Thereafter, another Written Statement (Exh.107) was filed. In that the case regarding dual-use was given up and it was sought to be contended that they were tenant since 45 years using the premises for their business right from the time the premises was rented and a further defence was raised that it was rented for the purpose of business also.

3.2 The trial court framed issues at Exh.9. It held that the tenant had committed breach of tenancy and had illegally converted the user of the premises, regarding which Issue No.1 and Issue No. 3 were framed. The court also held on evidence the other ground acquisition of alternative premises was held proved. The eviction decree passed on the said grounds by the trial court came to be confirmed by the lower appellate court which reinforced and affirmed the findings and conclusions.

3.3 The original tenant having died during the pendency of H.R.P. in the suit, his heirs and legal representatives were joined as defendants. Landlord died during the pendency of the civil appeal before the lower appellate Bench and his heirs were also joined in the proceedings of appeal as per order below Exh.14. Accordingly, the applicants herein are the legal heirs of the deceased tenant whereas respondents are the heirs of the deceased landlord.

4. Heard learned advoc