1. Present Revision Application under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act has been preferred by the petitioners original plaintiffs to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.09.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Gondal in Regular Civil Suit No.276 of 1985 confirmed by the learned Appellate Court i.e. 2nd Additional District Judge, Gondal dated 22.06.2009 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.76 of 1995.
2. Original petitioners herein original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No.276 of 1985 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Gondal against respondents tenants for decree of possession on the ground of tenants being in arrears of rent for more than six months and subletting. Learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after considering evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, dismissed the said Suit by holding that tenants are not in arrears of rent for more than six months and that there is no subletting of suit premises by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 as alleged. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, original plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.76 of 1995 before the District Court, Rajkot which came to be heard by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Gondal who by impugned judgment and decree dated 22.06.2009 has been pleased to dismiss said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the Suit.
3. Having heard learned Advocate for the petitioners original plaintiffs and considering judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, it cannot be said that both the Courts below have committed any error in dismissing the Suit and not decreeing the Suit on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting. There are concurrent findings given by both the Courts below in favour of defendants holding that landlord is not entitled to decree of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and subletting. It was found that defendant nos.1 and 2 were brothers who were doing business jointly and therefore, learned Trial Court has refused to pass decree on the ground of subletting which came to be confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Learned Advocate for the petitioners original plaintiffs is not in a position to point out any infirmity in judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below warranting interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
4. In view of above, there is no substance in the present Revision Application, which deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
[M.R.Shah,J.] satish Top