CRA/659/2009 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.659 OF 2009 Babul Virji Batliwala & Ors. … Applicants V/s. Abdul Shamji Rajan ... Respondent Mr.P.S. Dani for Petitioners Mr.Prabhakar Shetty for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 18, 2010 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been filed by the tenant claiming that the appellate Court has incorrectly appreciated the evidence led before the trial Court and has unwarrantedly allowed the appeal filed by the landlord. The applicant claims to be a sub-tenant of the head landlord whereas the respondent is the tenant. The respondent filed a suit contending that he wanted to start a business in the suit premises and, therefore, filed a suit under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act. 2. Mr.Dani appearing for the applicants submits that the appellate Court has fallen in error by relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court where it has dealt with the cases filed by landlords who owned the suit premises. The Supreme Court in these decisions, according to Mr.Dani, has held that the landlord being the best CRA/659/2009 : 2 : Judge of the manner in which he wants to use his premises cannot be told by the Court to use them in a particular manner. The Supreme Court has, right from the judgment in Prativa Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, consistently taken this view. According to Mr.Dani these judgments have no application in a case where a tenant seeks eviction of a sub-tenant on the ground of the tenant's bonafide requirement. However, in my opinion, the fine distinction which Mr.Dani has attempted to persuade me to draw is invidious. The submission that a landlord who is the owner of a property has the freedom to choose the manner in which he wishes to use the suit premises whereas a landlord who is also a tenant of the head landlord of the premises cannot exercise this option is unsustainable. 3. It is well settled that the concept of dual ownership is recognised in this country. The respondent has stated that he is a tenant of the land whereas he has constructed tin sheds, one of which is let to the Applicants. He therefore contends that he owns the tin sheds and therefore all the judgments of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that the landlord is the best Judge to decide the manner in which his premises should be used, would apply. 4. In my opinion, the appellate Court has not committed any error in allowing the appeal. 5. Civil revision application is dismissed. 6. On the application made by Mr.Dani, the decree shall not be executed for eight weeks from today.