JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. The captioned civil revision application was previously ordered to be taken up for final disposal and thus, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. B.C. Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondents.

3. By the captioned civil revision application under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (‘the Rent Act’ for short) the applicants - the heirs of the landlord, inter alia, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur in Regular Civil Appeal no. 43 of 2007. By the above referred judgment, the Appellate Court, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent- original defendant i.e. the tenant and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Palanpur in Regular Civil Suit no. 314 of 1998.

4. Tersely stated, are the facts:

4.1 The applicants-original plaintiffs, are the heirs of deceased Sagaalchand Devjibhai Acharya who was the owner of the property bearing Municipal House nos.2/822/20/3 and 2/822/20/3(A) situated at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’) which was given to the original defendant on monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit no. 314 of 1998 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Rent Act before the learned Additional Civil Judge, Palanpur seeking eviction of the original defendant and his family members from the suit property and payment of the outstanding rent. The plaintiff, also prayed for direction to the defendant to pay the rent of Rs.50/- per month till the possession, is handed over. It was the case of the plaintiff that the rent for the period from 01.06.1990 to 31.05.1998 to the tune of Rs.4,800/- has not been paid by the defendant and has also failed to pay the municipal tax of the suit property. Bona fide requirement was also one of the grounds, seeking eviction as the plaintiff’s son, has been married and the suit property was required for his use.

4.2 The defendant appeared and filed the written statement. The suit property, having given for monthly rent of Rs.50/-, is admitted. It was the stand in the written statement that the plaintiff never informed the defendant that the defendant is required to pay the municipal tax. It was also contended that the defendant has regularly paid the rent; however, it was the plaintiff who had not issued the receipt in lieu of the payment. Payment was also done through the money orders to the plaintiff. In the written statement, it is contended that the plaintiff is in no need of the suit property for bona fide requirement.

4.3 The suit, came to be partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff whereby, the defendant was directed to give the possession of the suit property coupled with the direction to pay the monthly rent of Rs.50/- till the possession of the suit property is given. Further direction was also issued to pay the outstanding rent of last three years together with interest and other expenses. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007, passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 314 of 1998, the defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal no. 43 of 2007 which came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 31.08.2021. The Appellate Court quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007 on the ground that the defendant had already paid the rent in advance upto 31.03.2022 in view of the order passed in Execution Petition no. 15 of 2017 and therefore, the defendant cannot be evicted. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court, the heirs of the original plaintiff and the original defendant, were brought on the record.

4.4 Being aggrieved, the applicants have preferred the capti