1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 179 OF 2008 Gurucharan Kaur Arora & Anr. ... Applicants (Org.Defedants) Versus Nanaksingh Bhagatsingh Arora & Ors. ... Respondents (Org.Defendants) Mr. J.S.Kini,Advocate, i/b. Mr. Suresh Dubey,Advocate, for the applicants. Mr.Jagdish G.Aradwad, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 21st April, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. One Karmadevi Bhagat Singh Arora filed Civil Suit No.327 of 1982 seeking declaration that she was the legal tenant of the shop premises. The defendants Nos.2 and 3 in the suit are the widow and son of deceased Ranjit Singh while the defendant No.1 is the landlord. After the death of Karmadevi, her another son and daughter made an application to be impleaded as her L.Rs. That application was allowed by the trial Court on 29.10.2007. That order is challenged in the present Revision Application. 2 3. The learned Counsel for the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who are the revision applicants, contended that after the death of Ranjit Singh, who was the tenant in the premises, only his widow and son can claim the tenancy and not his brother and sister. The mother was one of the Class I heirs along with the widow and son of deceased Ranjit Singh. However, pending the dispute, the mother, who was the original plaintiff, died. Her son and daughter would be the L.Rs. of Class II of the deceased Ranjit Singh and, therefore, they would not get legal right to inherit the tenancy from Ranjit Singh. 4. During the hearing before this Court, an affidavit is filed by Nanaksingh, who claims to be the son and legal heir of the deceased plaintiff and he has also produced xerox copies of certain rent receipts to show that originally, the father if Nanaksingh was the tenant. If it is so, then the L.Rs. of the plaintiff may be entitled to continue the suit. It may be made clear that xerox copies cannot be treated as evidence. Further, certain names and writings appear to have been washed away or at least they are not legible. Therefore, the genuineness of these documents needs to be proved. Even though in the plaint, it was nowhere pleaded by the deceased plaintiff that her husband Bhagatsingh was the original tenant in the premises, that plea appears to have been developed during the hearing of the 3 Revision Application before this Court. In the affidavit of Nanaksingh, an attempt is made to get support to that plea from the aforesaid xerox copies of the rent receipts. Taking into consideration these circumstances, in my considered opinion, it will not be appropriate to set aside the impugned order in the present Revision Application and all the pleas taken by the parties and the stand taken by the L.Rs. of the original plaintiff in the present Revision Application need to be considered by the trial court on the basis of evidence that may be produced by the parties. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the Revision Application stands dismissed. The trial Court is hereby directed to expedite and dispose of Civil Suit No.327 of 1982 as early as possible, and in any case before the end of September, 2010. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)