Tenancy rights cannot be established without substantial evidence to support claims under applicable tenancy law.

ORDER

Applicants have challenged judgment and decree passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Surat below Ex.

165 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006 on 29.04.2017. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The present applicants, who were original defendants before the Small Causes Court at Surat in Small Cause Suit No.

391 of 1988 have stated that the husband of the plaintiff no.1 and father of the plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 hired a suit premises ie., one room before 13 years in the Bungalow No. 11 of Courtyardnagar Cooperative Housing Society, situated at Rander Road, Surat wherein he was a tenant. That, the original opponent namely Ajitsinh Chudasama was disable physically, and therefore, was serving as a watchman in the society and rent of Rs. 50/- per month was being deducted from his salary. That, entire rent was paid by the deceased and his salary was paid by the original defendant. That, he was sick and was under medical treatment, and therefore, he was advised to take rest. Due to sickness and advice of the Doctor, he was unable to attend his place of service regularly and accordingly, he had also informed the defendant. From November 1987, salary of the deceased was not paid by the defendant. That, he was expired on 26th July 1988 due to disease. That, plaintiffs no.2 and 3, alongwith their family were staying in the suit premises.

Meanwhile, defendants through their servants forcefully tried to get possession from the plaintiff by throwing the household articles. As per say of the plaintiff, they are legal heirs of the deceased and have acquired tenenacy right in the suit premises. No receipt of rent was issued by the defendants, as they were in possession of the suit premises as tenant, the defendants were trying to get possession of the suit premises from the plaintiffs by force, and therefore, it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from disturbing possession of the suit premises by force, through agents or through their servants etc. The learned trial Judge, after recording evidence of the either side was pleased to dismiss the suit vide judgment and order dated 23rd November 2005.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge in Small Suit No. 391 of 1988, the present applicants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006 before the court of learned Additional District Judge at Surat, however, the said appeal was decided after hearing the parties by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Surat vide order dated 29th April 2017, dismissed the appeal.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Surat dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2016, the present revision application has been preferred by the present applicants.

Heard learned advocate for the applicants.

It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that deceased Ajitsinh was a Watchman in the respondent- society and was given suit premises on rent at Rs. 50/- per month. It was further submitted that the amount of rent was deducted by the society from the salary of the deceased ie., father of the plaintiff no.1. However, no receipt of rent was issued to the deceased. That, father of the plaintiff was suffering from intestine problem in the year 1987, and therefore, had gone to his native village Vagad, District:

Ahmedabad for treatment and had accordingly informed the society about his sickness. However, on 26th July 1988, he expired and therefore, the plaintiffs were staying in the suit premises by acquiring tenancy right. That, the entire rent was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant. That, the defendants forcefully tried to get vacant possession of the suit premises from the plaintiffs and have threaten them, and therefore, they were compelled to file a suit before the Small Cause Court.

That, learned trial Judge has committed grave error in not considering status of th