:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 OF 2007 1. Smt. Bechanidevi K. Gupta (since deceased) 2. Kanhayalal Sitaram Gupta (since deceased) 2a.Shivchandar Kanhayalal Gupta and ors. ..Appellants (Org.Plffs.) Vs. 1.Ratilal Jadhunandan Nirankari and ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani for the appellants. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : January 17, 2008. Date : January 17, 2008. Date : January 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Dani, the learned counsel for the appellants, who are original plaintiffs in Short Cause Suit No. 530 of 1985 and by the said suit the plaintiffs had sought possession of certain premises, one of them being Room No.10, which is in possession of the defendant no.8. 2. The said suit came to be withdrawn against defendant nos.1 to 6 and only defendant no.8 contested the suit. He claimed that the plaintiffs were not the :2: owners of Room No.10 though he was tenant of the same from the plaintiffs’ father Kanhayalal. The trial court, on considering the evidence both oral as well as the documentary, recorded a finding that the plaintiffs could not prove their ownership and at the same time held that the defendant no.8 could not be called as trespasser. The defendant no.8 had produced rent receipt in respect of Room No.10 which has been in his occupation and the plaintiffs admitted that those receipts were within their knowledge and have been issued by their father. Consequently, the trial court held that the defendant no.8 was not a trespasser. Finally, the suit has been dismissed as per the Judgment and Order dated 16/8/2007 and hence this First Appeal. 3. On the issue of ownership of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property, they had relied upon a photostat copy of the lease agreement dated 23/1/1970 executed by one Janu Bhanji Bhoye and it was marked as "Y" for identification but it was not proved. The other documents relied upon by the plaintiffs were a letter from the Collector regarding 5 structures which :3: were censused and letter from the Corporation regarding repairs permission of the said room. In the cross examination of the plaintiffs the 7x12 extract at Exh.D-13 was proved and it showed that F.E. Dinshaw Charitis was the kabjedar of property bearing Survey No.282 and Janu Bhanji Bhoye was the tenant (Kool) in the said property. On the face of this evidence, the findings of the trial court that the plaintiffs could not prove their title as owners of the suit property cannot be faulted with. 4. Mr. Dani submitted that even if the plaintiffs were not the owners, so long as the defendant no.8 had admitted that he was the tenant through plaintiffs’ late father, the plaintiffs have the legal right to seek his eviction by appropriate proceedings under the Rent Act. There could be no two opinions on this proposition and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court would not come in the way of the plaintiffs to approach the Tenancy Court for appropriate reliefs and it is well settled in law that one need not be the owner to seek possession of the tenanted premises so :4: long as the tenancy has been proved and at the most the defendant no.8 could be proved to be a sub-tenant. 5. Hence, the appeal fails at the threshold and the same is dismissed in limine. It is clarified that if the plaintiffs approach the Tenancy Court such a suit will have to be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by the impugned judgment. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)