JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Application has been filed to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No.92 of 2013 dated 17.08.2023 whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.07.20213 passed by the Small Cause Court No.7 Ahmedabad in HRP Suit No.1809 of 2009 has been quashed and set aside.

2. The plaintiff had filed HRP Suit No.1808 of 2009 and 1809 of 2009 for eviction under the provision of Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. The trial Court granted eviction under the provision of section 13(1)(a), 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act and the said judgment and decree were challenged by the defendants by way of Civil Appeal No.91 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No.92 of 2013 and the said appeals filed by the defendants tenant were allowed and the order passed by Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad granting eviction of the suit property was dismissed and quashed and set aside and the said order is under challenge by way of the present Civil Revision Application. The parties are referred to plaintiffs and defendants herein.

3. The brief facts arising in the present proceedings are that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and the suit property was let on rent on 01.05.1963 to father of defendant No.1 i.e. Abbasali Hajimuradali at a monthly rent of Rs.53/- over and above the municipal taxes and other charges. It is specific case of the plaintiffs that the suit property was let on rent on 01.05.1963 for the purposes of business of cycle work as “Noble Cycle Works”, and after the death of the original tenant, the defendant No.1 become the tenant of the suit premises. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the life time of the original tenant Abbasali Hajimuradali, the property at Municipal Census No.816/1 known as Baverchikhana was also let on rent to original tenant on 17.11.1970 at monthly rent of Rs.22/- and the said property was also given for business of cycle repairing work and a rent agreement was executed on 17.11.1980. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that the suit property was let on rent for the business of cycle repairing work only and that the defendant No.1, changed the use of shop and is now doing the business of seat covers, number plate and accessories etc., and therefore, as the defendant No.1 committed breach of the terms of condition of the rent note, the plaintiffs had sought possession of the suit property.

3.1 Though in the suit, the plaintiffs have also claimed the eviction on other ground of sub letting the premises, the trial Court has not granted the decree of eviction on the ground of sub letting and the said order has not been challenged. The present Civil Revision Application only deals with the fact of change of user i.e. Section 13(l)(k) of Bombay Rent Act and Section 13(1)(a) whether the defendants have committed breach of terms of tenancy.

3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that alongwith the ground of seeking eviction on the ground of Section 13(l) (k), the defendants have also committed breach of the terms of tenancy whereby without a permission of the plaintiffs the landlord has demolished the wall between the shop which was let in the yer 1963 and the Bavarchikhana which was let in the yer 1970 and thereby has made the entire property into one property and the present defendants were only permitted to construct the door in the wall between the property which was already used as “Noble Cycle Work” and Bavarchikhana and no consent was taken by the defendants from the plaintiffs to demolish the wall. The plaintiffs are entitled the possession of the suit in view of the section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.

4. Learned advocate for the plaintiffs has argued that both the properties i.e. shop and Bavarchikhana are let on rent to the deceased Abbasali Hajimuradali for the business of Cycle Repairing Work as Noble Cycle Work and the said fact is also mentioned in the ren