The second defendant companytested the suit and denied all the grounds.
The first defendant did number oppose the suit.
The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased landlady, Smt.
Recovery of possession was sought on the following three grounds 1 the tenant companymitted default in payment of rent for the period, June 1973 to November 10, 1974 2 the first defendant sublet the premises to the second defendant 3 bona fide requirement of the landlady for personal occupation of her family.
The tenants went in appeal before the Court of Assistant Judge of Nasik in Civil Appeal No.138 of 1981.
The learned trial companyrt found that all the grounds were established by the landlady and granted a decree for eviction of tenants.
Ramkubai, and the respondents are original defendant No.1, Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak and the legal representatives of the second defendant Lalchand Dhokalchand Chandak hereinafter they are referred to as landlady and tenants .
The landlady filed civil suit, bearing Civil Suit No.12 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge J.D. Igatpuri, against the respondent No.1 herein and the said Lalchand Dhokalchand Chandak who died during the pendency of the proceedings, respondent Nos.2A to 2F are his legal representatives, for recovery of possession of house bearing Municipal No.138 and one of the rooms in house No.150 within the Municipal limits of Igatpuri town for short the suit premises under Sections 12 and 13 1 e and g of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for short the Act .
It was pleaded that the first defendant and the second defendant were brothers and they companystitute a joint family and that the premises was obtained by the first defendant for the family.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.No.362 of 1984 dated March 27, 1997.
