: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.565 OF 2009 Gunwant Manilal Shah & Anr. .. Applicants V/s. Bai Prabhavati Haridas Bhatia, Decd., Thru’ Charulata Jamnadas Bhatia & Ors.. Respondents Mr. R.V. Govilkar i/b. Mr. H.T. Pawar for the Applicants. The Respondent No.3 present in person. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the trial Court and the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The R.A.E. Suit No.537/1001 of 1999 filed by the heirs of the original owner-landlord, who was the predecessors of respondent Nos.1 to 5. The Suit has been filed against the heirs of the original tenant who are respondent Nos.6 and 7 i.e. defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.3 and 4, i.e. the applicants herein, and defendant No.5 were described as unlawful occupants. The Suit has been decreed. : 2 : 2. The main contention raised in the present Civil Revision Application is that the Courts below have erred in concluding that the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and that the present Suit was maintainable. It is submitted that the Small Causes Court can adjudicate upon a lis only between a landlord and a tenant. According to the learned Advocate, the present Suit was filed by the heirs of the original owner of the building against defendant Nos.1 and 2, who were the heirs of Balubhai Madhavji who was the original tenant, and themselves. The learned Advocate points out that in their plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that the applicants are the unlawful occupants of the suit premises and, therefore, the Suit was not maintainable before the Small Causes Court. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmidas Morarji (Dead) by LRs vs. Behrose Darab Madan, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 425, in support of his submissions. : 3 : 4. In my opinion, this submission of the learned Advocate is unsustainable. The pleadings in the plaint indicate that the ground for eviction was that defendant Nos.1 and 2, who were the tenants, being the heirs or the original tenant, had unlawfully sublet the premises to defendant Nos.3 to 5, i.e. the applicants herein, and therefore the decree for eviction was sought. The case of the plaintiffs was not only filed against defendant Nos.3 to 5, but also against the tenants for having unlawful sublet the suit premises. In my opinion, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court have rightly decreed the suit on this ground. 5. Apart from this, in my opinion, both the Courts below have not committed any error by concluding that the defendants were not entitled to continue in the suit premises being, illegal sub-tenants. 6. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. : 4 : 7. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants seeks a stay of this order as he wants to approach the Supreme Court. Stay granted for eight weeks from today.