JUDGMENT :

A.P. Thaker, J.

1. Present civil revision application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates, Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Rent Act") is preferred by the applicants against the judgment and order dated 22.02.1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1984. The applicants herein are the original plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the original defendants (for the sake of gravity, the parties are required to be referred to as "the plaintiffs" and "the defendants" respectively).

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have filed Civil Suit No. 186 of 1978 in the Court of Civil Judge at Anand and has prayed that defendant No. 1 (since died) was the tenant of the suit premises belonging to the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and it was let to defendant No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 150/- for business purpose. It is also alleged that since, original defendant No. 1 has sub let the suit shop to defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit on the ground of subletting of the suit premises and on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the son of plaintiff No. 2. Initially, the suit was filed against defendant No. 1 only and, thereafter, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were subsequently added as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the suit was resisted by the defendants denying the tenancy rights of the plaintiffs and prayed to dismiss the suit. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge was pleased to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiffs, against which, the defendants have instituted Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1984 in District Court, Kheda at Nadiad whereby after hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge was pleased to allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 22.02.1988.

2.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 22.02.1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1984, the plaintiffs have preferred this civil revision application inter alia contending that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was just, legal and proper and the Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the facts that defendant No. 1 - original tenant is not in India and has settled in Africa since last so many years and the business was being carried out in the name and style of defendant No. 2 and it shows that defendant No. 1 has sublet the suit premises to defendants No. 2 and 3 and, therefore, it was a clear case of sub-letting which does not require any proof. It is contended that as defence of partnership between the defendants is wrongly believed as non-resident cannot carry on business in partnership in India without the permission of the competent authority and no such permission has been shown to have been obtained by the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court has not properly appreciated ratio of the decisions cited and the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Court is unjust and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The plaintiffs have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned District Judge passed in Civil Appeal No. 89 of 1984 and to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge.

3. Heard Mr. J.F. Mehta, learned advocate for the plaintiffs and Mr. H.M. Parikh, learned senior advocate for the respondents at length. Perused the materials placed on record and the impugned judgment and orders of both the Courts below.

4. Mr. J.F. Mehta, learned advocate for the applicants - original plaintiffs has submitted that the only question to be decided is regarding issue of sub-letting the suit premises. While referring to the pleadings of the parties before the Trial Court, he has submitted that initially, the plaintiffs have previously filed