B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. - (1.)BEING aggrieved by the decision dated 9/10.12.2002 of this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No. 3487 of 1989, this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed and the following two preliminary issues as raised by the respective parties were framed by our order dated 29.1.2003.
(a) Whether a writ petition would lie against, the decision of the District Court in an appeal under Section 29 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Bombay Rent Act) instead of a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (b) Whether this Letters Patent Appeal could be entertained when Writ Petition No. 3487 of 1989 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.)THE learned Counsel for the respective parties in their address before us agreed that alongwith the preliminary issues so far framed, the merits of the respective submissions either in support or against the eviction order are also required to be considered and accordingly, we have heard both the sides at length.
The suit premises which admeasured originally 12 x 23 ft. are part of House Bearing Municipal No. 176 situated at Balaji Peth, Jalgaon and located on the ground floor. The premises were owned originally by Manikchand Oswal and on his demise, his wife Badamibai became the owner. She executed a lease agreement (Exhibit 66) in favour of Dr. Savaldas Makheja on 13.8.1970 and pursuant to the said instrument the suit premises were leased out to Dr. Makheja for running his dispensary. The lease was on month to month basis and the monthly rent was Rs. 125/ - with a deposit of Rs. 4,000/ - and 50% amount was to be adjusted against the deposit amount while paying the rental compensation. On 24.8.1980 the landlady issued a notice for possession (Exhibit 53) on the ground that the tenant had not. paid rent of the suit premises from 1.4.1 979 and the premises were required for bona fide purpose. By the said notice, the tenancy was sought to be terminated from 12.9.1980 and the landlady demanded vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises on termination of the tenancy. Inspite of the receipt of notice, neither rent was paid nor possession of the suit premises was handed over. On the demise of the landlady, her legal representatives had filed Civil Suit. No. 2 of 1981. on or about 2.1.1981. However, before the said suit: was filed, the tenant had approached the Trial Court by filing Misc. Application No. 276 of 1980 for fixation of standard rent. The tenant had submitted his written statement at Exhibit 12 on 27.7.1 981 and opposed the eviction decree sought, in Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 1981. Similarly, the landlords had filed reply to Misc. Application No. 276 of 1980 and opposed the same. By the judgment and order dated 27.3.1984, Civil Suit No. 2 of 1981 came to be dismissed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Jalgaon. Similarly. Misc. Application No. 276 of 1980 was also dismissed by the same common judgment.

(3.)BEING aggrieved by the view taken by the Trial Court, the landlords filed Civil Appeal No. 228 of 1984 and the same was dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon. on 17.9.1986. Both these orders passed by the Courts below came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 5290 of 1987 which came to be registered as Writ Petition No. 3487 of 1989 on its transfer lo this Bench. The petition was finally heard and allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and a decree of eviction came to be passed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and comparative hardship under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act.