1 Cra-411.09 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 411 OF 2009 Vishwas Gangadhar Ghatnekar. .. Applicant Vs Vilas Madhusudan Nanal & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri R.S. Apte, Sr. Counsel i/by Shri Vaibhav Patankar for the Applicant. Shri R.S. Desai i/by Ajay Joshi for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. - CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant has relied upon the averments made in the revision application and in particular in Ground (k) of Paragraph 7 as regards the alleged letting out of the premises by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents on the ground floor of the building to a Jeweller. It is pointed out that the premises have been let out to the jeweller after disposal of the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st and the 2nd Respondents relies upon the affidavit filed by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents and in particular Paragraph 3 thereof. 2 Cra-411.09 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st and the 2nd Respondents submitted that instead of keeping the revision application pending in this Court, the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court to enable the 1st and the 2nd Respondents to lead evidence for establishing that the premises let out to the Jeweller were never available to the 1st and the 2nd Respondents and that as stated in Paragraph 3 of the affidavit in reply, the tenant has allowed the Jeweller to use the shop premises as a licensee. In view of this request, order of remand deserves to be passed to enable both the parties to adduce evidence on the subsequent events. 4. It must be noted here that both the Courts below have found that it is the Applicant who is the tenant in respect of the suit premises and the 3rd Respondent has ceased to be a tenant. Hence, the 3rd Respondent is not a necessary party as the said finding has not been challenged by the 3rd Respondent. 5. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The Judgment and Decrees passed by both the Courts below are quashed and set aside and the Civil Suit No. 571 of 2000 is restored to the file of the Trial Court. (b) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 10th January, 2011. It will be open for the 1st 3 Cra-411.09 and the 2nd Respondents to lead further evidence. It is obvious that even the Applicant is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. (c) It is made clear that the finding on Point No.1 in the Judgment of the Trial Court stands confirmed and the remand is only for the purposes of considering the ground of bonafide need and the issue of comparative hardship. (d) The Trial Court shall decide the suit afresh after considering the evidence which is already on record and the evidence which may be adduced by the parties after remand. (e) The suit shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably by the end of June, 2011. (ee) The Revision Application is disposed of on above terms. (f) The Trial Court shall act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.OKA, J)