JUDGMENT :

1. The present revision application is filed under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 ("the Rent Act") by the defendant Nos.2 and 4 of the original proceedings.

2. Parties in this judgment are referred to as per their original status in the Suit.

3. Plaintiffs - Batul Abbasbhai Rangwala and Jamuna Abbasbhai Rangwala (i.e. the present opponent Nos.1 and 2) instituted suit H.R.P. No.1471 2008 seeking possession of the suit premises and mense profits along with the costs of the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the properties situated in Kalupur Ward No.1, Near Khadia New Gate, bearing Survey No.2724, admeasuring about 37 sq.mtrs., having floor and Survey No.2725, admeasuring about 90 sq.mtrs., and they are in possession and occupation of the ground floor and the premises of the first floor and second floor bearing M.C. No.589/A and Tenement No.0114- 1100-0002-V has been given to defendant No.1 as a tenant of the said premises with monthly rent of Rs.60/- since 1970. It is further their case that the suit was instituted by asserting that the family members of defendant No.1 and his uncle Fazlehusein are the joint tenants, as they were residing in the suit premises and they have not jointly paid rent of the suit premises since October, 2000 and thereafter, the rent is due for the period from 01.11.2000 to 31.05.2008 to the tune of Rs.5,460/- and they are entitled to get the possession of the suit premises from the defendants on the ground of arrears of rent. Additionally, it was also contended that the defendants and their family members have acquired their own property and, therefore, they are not in need of the suit premises. In the suit, it was also asserted that the defendants have become the tenants of the suit premises by virtue of joint family members of the tenant and all the defendants are not using the suit premises. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have sub-let or transferred the possession of the suit premises to a stranger and third party is using the suit premises. With these assertion of facts, the plaintiffs had instituted the suit to recover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises from the defendants and also to recover means profits.

4. The trial court framed the issues vide Exh.40. There are 10 issues framed by the trial court and after recording the evidence - both documentary as well as oral adduced by the parties, it answered the issues Nos.1 to 4, and 6 and 7 in the negative and issue No.5 in the affirmative. Issue No.8 is connected to issue No.5, whereas while answering issue Nos.9 and 10 the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs-landlord and directed the defendants to handover the physical possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the trial court, the defendants filed Civil Appeal No.38 of 2012 before the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad. By the judgement and order dated 12.05.2018, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the trial court, which has given rise to the present civil revision application.

SUBMISSIONS:

5. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal C. Mehta appearing for the original defendants Nos.2 and 4 submitted that the Trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs mainly by answering issue No.5 in the affirmative, which pertains to acquiring possession of a suitable residence by three defendants. It is submitted by him that both the courts below have failed in appreciating the vital aspect that there is no evidence to establish that defendants No.2 (Aziz Fazlehusein Karaka) and No.4 (Mufddal Fazlehusein Karaka) have acquired a suitable alternative accommodation other than the demised premises and the suit is only decreed by resorting to the provisions of section 13(1)(l) of the Rent Act by holding that other defendants, who ar