1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2007 1. Kundlik s/o. Yeshwanta Lunge, Died, Through his L.Rs. 1A. Radhabai w/o. Kundlik Lunge, R/o. Post Office Road, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. 1B. Govind s/o. Kundlik Lunge, R/o. As above. 1C. Balaji s/o. Kundlik Lunge, Age 16 yrs., Under Guardian of mother Radhabai w/o. Kundlik Lunge, R/o. As above. 1D. Archana d/o. Kundlik Lunge, R/o. As above. 1-E. Ratanmala d/o. Kundlik Lunge, R/o. As above. 2. Kishan s/o. Yashwant Lunge, R/o. Railway Station Road, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ....Applicants. Versus 1. Anandilal s/o. Modhaolal Bagadiya Died, Through his L.Rs. 1A. Jammabai w/o. Anandilal Bagadiya, R/o. Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. 1B. Satishkumar s/o. Anandilal Bagadiya, R/o. Manakpura, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur. 2 1C. Sunil s/o. Anandilal Bagadiya, R/o. As above. 1D. Anil s/o. Anandilal Bagadiya, R/o. As above. 2. Shriram s/o. Babu Lunge, R/o. Old Jalna, Beside Tanhya Gaoli Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. (deleted as per order dt.3.11.09) ....Respondents. Shri. V.V. Bhavtankar h/f. Shri. U.R. Chavan, Advocate for the applicants. Shri. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for the respondents 1A to 1D. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 3rd November, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri. Bhavtankar holding for Shri. U.R. Chavan, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri. P.S. Pawar for respondent Nos. 1A to 1D. Admit. Shri. P.S. Pawar Advocate waives service of notice for respondent Nos. 1A to 1D. The matter is heard finally by consent of parties at the stage of admission itself. Shri. Bhavtankar, the learned counsel for the applicant prays that applicants be permitted to delete the name of the respondent No. 2 from the array of respondents as he has already vacated the premises long back and is not the necessary party. The permission is granted. The name of the respondent No. 2 is deleted. The amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3 2. This appeal has been preferred by the original respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against whom the Appellate Court has delivered the judgment and order dated 16.1.2007 in Rent Appeal No. 2/2003 for eviction and possession. The respondent No. 1A to 1D are the legal representatives of the landlord who had filed case No. 1988-RC-R-20 for eviction and possession of the suit premises. It was alleged that the respondent No. 2 herein, who is the original tenant, had sub let the premises in question to the appellants herein. The eviction of the respondent No. 2 herein was sought on the grounds viz. that he was willful defaulter [section 15 (2) (i)], has made alterations without consent of the landlord [section 15 (2) (ii)] and that premises were required for bona fide use of the landlord [section 15 (2) (iii) ]. 3. The Rent Controller, Hingoli vide its judgment and order dated 12.3.2003 dismissed the application for eviction by holding that the landlord has failed to establish that the original tenant, who is the respondent No. 2 herein had inducted the appellants herein (original respondent Nos. 2 and 3) as sub-tenants. In appeal preferred by the landlord, the respondent no. 1 herein, the Appellant Court reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller by holding that the respondent No. 1 has proved the grounds under section 15(2)(i)(ii)(iii) against the present appellants who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Appellate Court further directed the present appellants to deliver the vacant possession of the 4 suit premises to the landlord. This order is being challenged by the original respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the instant civil revision application. 4. Both the Courts below have held that the landlord has failed to establish that the respondent No. 2, the original tenant has sub-let the premises in question to the present appellants (original respondent Nos. 2 and 3). Having recorded such finding, no decree for eviction could have been passed on the ground under section 15 (i) (ii) (iii) against the present applicants without making out any case against them. If the appellants are held to be the tenants of the suit premises, then the landlord will have to institute the separate proceedings for eviction, making out the ground for eviction against them. In view of this, the judgment and order dated 16th of January 2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Parbhani in Rent Appeal No. 2/2003 will have to be quashed and set aside. 5. In the result, the judgment and order dated 16.1.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Parbhani in Rent Appeal No. 2/2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 12.3.2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Hingoli in case No.1988-RC-R-20 is restored. It is, however, made it clear that the landlord, who is the respondent No. 1 herein shall be at liberty to institute separate proceedings for eviction against the present applicants and none of the observations made either by this Court or by the Courts below shall come in the way of the 5 landlord in prosecuting any such matter, if filed. The revision application is, thus, allowed with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cra63.07