1 (CRA 403 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2011 H.L.R. of late Miss J.T. Chitiwalla ...Applicants vs. Minoo Rustomji Shroff & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Tushar Dahibawkar i/b. M/s. Dahibawkar & Co. for Applicants Ms. Angel Carneiro i/b. M/s. Mulla & Mulla & CBC for Respondents ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 2nd August, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the Respondents. 2. The Applicants are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.658 of 2005 in R.A.E. Suit No.1718 of 1994. 3. The Respondents are the original Plaintiffs and the Applicants are the original Defendants (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “the Plaintiffs and the Defendants”). A suit was filed by the 2 (CRA 403 of 2011) Plaintiffs against the Defendants for eviction on the ground of unlawful sub-letting. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant No.1 was the tenant and the other Defendants were sub-tenants. The Defendant No.2, however, filed his written statement and it was contended that the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are not sub- tenants, who are relatives of the Defendant No.1. The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. However, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have filed this Civil Revision Application. 4. It is contended that the Defendant No.1 had filed her affidavit, in which she has stated that the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are her relatives. It is submitted that in the form, which was filled up by the Defendant No.1 during her life time with the Trust, she has stated that the Defendants are her relatives. It is submitted that, therefore, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the Defendants has not established that they are relatives of the original tenant-Defendant No.1, is incorrect. The learned counsel for the Defendants- Applicants has invited my attention to the deposition of the witnesses and the finding of the Lower Appellate Court. It is submitted that, therefore, the said finding of 3 (CRA 403 of 2011) the Lower Appellate Court is perverse and the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that no evidence had been produced by the Defendants to establish that they were relatives of the Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 during her life time also did not produce any documents to show that the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 were her relatives. Secondly, it is submitted that the said so called form which was allegedly filled up by the Defendant No.1, was not produced since the said document was not available and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said form. So far as the affidavit of the Defendant No.1 is concerned, it is submitted that, the said affidavit itself could not prove that the Defendants were her relatives. 6. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, in my view, no case is made out for interfering with the said impugned order. The Lower Appellate Court has considered the documentary evidence on record and has given cogent reason for coming to the conclusion that the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 were not relatives of the Defendant No.1, who expired during the pendency of the suit. Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure 4 (CRA 403 of 2011) Code. 7. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Three months’ time is given to the Applicants- Defendant Nos.2 to 4 to vacate the premises. Civil Revision Applications is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)