1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2008 Hirabai w/o Bansilal Bagdiya died L.Rs. 1-A) Omprakash and ors. ...Petitioners VERSUS Sawarmal, died L.Rs. 1-A) Tarabaiand ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri M.K.Deshpande, advocate for the petitioners ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 6 th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By the present Civil Revision Application, the petitioners have challenged the correctness and legality of the judgment and 2 order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2005 by the learned District Judge-2, Jalna on 18.9.2008. 3. The petitioners (original plaintiffs) have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 292 of 2004 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna for eviction of original defendant no.1 in respect of suit premises bearing Municipal House No.3485-old and 3536-new, Plate No. 1-13-350 consisting of 3 rooms on the ground floor of Moti building, situated at Opp. Old Grain Market, Swami Dayanand Road, Sadar Bazar, Jalna by initiating proceedings under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. However, the said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 30.9.2005. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioners/original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2005 before the court of District Judge-2, Jalna. However, the learned District Judge-2, Jalna dismissed the said Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2005 vide judgment and order on 18.9.2008. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred the present Civil Revision Application challenging its correctness and legality. 4. It is necessary to note that during the simultaneousl round of litigation, the petitioners filed Title suit i.e. Regular Civil 3 Suit No. 376 of 2005 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna regarding the property consisting of suit premises. However, the said suit was dismissed on 16.10.2008. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1982, but same also was dismissed on 9.5.1988. The petitioners/plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and order in Second Appeal No. 177 of 1988, but same also came to be dismissed on 20.12.2008. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioners have preferred Special Leave to Petition before the Honoruable Supreme Court and reportedly it is pending. 5. Keeping in mind the said aspect and coming to the judgment and orders passed by both the lower courts, it is seen that specific issue was framed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna that whether the petitioners/plaintiffs are lawful owners/landlord of the suit premises and the said issue was negatived by the learned Civil Judge. Moreover, the appellate court, while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2005, gave a finding on the issue, whether it is proved by the petitioners/plaintiffs that defendant no.1 has denied their title of the suit premises and caused breach of tenancy in view of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, in negative. 4 6. Moreover, there was only one ground which was taken up by the petitioners/plaintiffs for eviction i.e. Mainly bona fide need of the suit premises and the said ground was negatived by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna while dismissing Regular Civil Suit No. 292 of 2004 as well as learned District Judge-2, Jalna also negatived the said ground while dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2005 and both the courts held that the said ground does not survive since the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to prove the ownership/status as landlord in respect of the suit premises. 7. In the circumstances, apparently no law point has been agitated by the petitioners in the present Civil Revision Application and it is also apparently clear that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalna in Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2005 on 18.9.2008 and, therefore, no interference therein is warranted under the revisional jurisdiction. 8. In the result, present Civil Revision Application fails and same stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) 5 dbm/cra183.08