Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.326 OF 2022

Subhadra Laxman Jadhav

deceased through her legal heirs-

Rajendra Laxman Jadhav

(since deceased through his legal

heirs)-

1(a) Chitrali Rajendra Jadhav and Ors. ...Applicants

V/s.

Mrs. Vandana Sanjay Kale ...Respondent

________________

Mr. Sandeep Pathak for the Applicants.

Mr. Prashant Darandale with Mr. Bajrang M. Solanke for the

Respondent.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Judgment Reserved on: 2 APRIL 2026.

Judgment pronounced on: 8 APRIL 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1) The Applicants have invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this

Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code)

for assailing the judgment and decree dated 7 December 2021 passed by

the District Court, Pune, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.746 of 2016

and confirming the eviction decree dated 29 July 2016 passed by the

Small Causes Court in Civil Suit No.225 of 2008. The Trial and the

Page No. 1 of 15

8 April 2026 2026:BHC-AS:16699

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

Appellate Courts have concurrently upheld the ground of bonafide

requirement of Plaintiff for directing eviction of the

Applicants/Defendants. Additionally, both the Courts have concurrently

ordered eviction of the Defendants /Applicants on the ground of denial

of title of the Plaintiff by the Defendants.

2)A structure comprising of three rooms with a mezzanine floor and

open space towards the west together with a shed admeasuring 8 x 8

sq.ft. in the open space and a bathroom, situated at CTS No.693 (old),

C.T.S. No.596-B(new), Nana Peth, Pune are the ‘suit premises’. Plaintiff-

Mrs. Vandana Sanjay Kale claims ownership in respect of the suit

premises. Mr. Yashwant Ganpat Jadhav was initially inducted as tenant

in respect of the suit premises. After his death, his wife and two sons

Laxman and Chandrakant resided in the suit premises. Tenant’s wife

also passed away. Thereafter Laxman, his wife-Subhadra, sons -

Rajendra, Jitendra, Ravindra, Balasaheb as well as Chandrakant and his

wife resided in the suit premises. After death of Laxman and

Chandrakant, Subhadra and her four children as well as Suman (wife of

Chandrakant) were residing in the suit premises. Plaintiff claims to

have purchased the property bearing CTS No.693(old) and 596B(new)

vide Sale Deed dated 26 June 2006. According to the Plaintiff, she issued

notice of attornment to the Defendants calling them upon to choose a

name for issuance of rent receipts. That notice was accepted by

Defendant No.4-Ravindra Laxman Jadhav. The Plaintiff demanded

possession of the suit premises alongwith arrears of rent on 28

September 2007. According to the Plaintiff, Defendants had paid rent to

the previous owner till 30 September 1981 and were in arrears of rent

Page No. 2 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

thereafter. Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.225 of 2008 in the Court of Small

Causes, Pune, for bonafide requirement of her family contending that

there were 8 to 10 members in the family. The Plaintiff also alleged

unauthorised additions and alterations in the suit premises. The

Plaintiff accordingly sought eviction of the Defendants from the suit

premises. The suit was resisted by the Defendants by filing common

written statement. In the written statement, Defendants questioned the

title of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises contending that they

were not aware about purchase thereof by the Plaintiff. The Defendants

called upon the Plaintiff to prove acquisition of ownership of the suit

premises.

3)The Trial Court proceeded to frame issues based on the pleadings.

Plaintiff’s husband-Sanjay Kale was examined as witness on behalf of

the Plaintiff. On behalf of the Applicants/Defendants, Rajendra

(Defendant No.2), Jitendra (Defendant No.3) and three other witnesses

viz., Subhash Baban Gaikwad, Vinod Shashikant Pawar and Subhash

Jaywant Kale were examined. After consideration of pleadings,

documentary and oral evidence, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the

Suit by its judgment and order dated 29 July 2016. The Trial Court

rejected the ground of default in payment of rent. However, it accepted

the ground of bonafide requirement and also held that greater hardship

would be caused to the Plaintiff by denial of decree of eviction. The

Trial Court also held that the Plaintiff was entitled to recover

possession of suit premises on account of Defendants denying her title.

The Trial Court accordingly directed the Defendants to handover

possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff within a period of three

Page No. 3 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

months. The Trial Court further directed conduct of enquiry into mesne

profit under Order XX Rule 12 (c) of the Code.

4)Defendants /Applicants filed Regular Civil Appeal No.746 of 2016

before District Court, Pune, challenging the eviction decree dated 29

July 2016. During pendency of the Appeal, the Appellate Court stayed

the eviction decree by directing the Applicants to deposit monthly

compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of decree vide

order dated 7 November 2016. The Appellate Court has dismissed the

appeal by judgment and order dated 7 December 2021 by upholding the

eviction decree on both grounds of bonafide requirement as well as

denial of Plaintiff’s title by the Defendants. Aggrieved by the concurrent

decrees passed by the Trial and the Appellate Courts, the Applicants

initially filed Writ Petition, which was permitted to be converted into

Civil Revision Application. By order dated 18 April 2022, this Court

recorded statement made on behalf of the Respondent -Plaintiff that

the execution proceedings would not be proceeded with. The said

statement is continued from time to time. The Revision Application is

called out for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties.

5)Mr. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants

submits that the Trial and the Appellate Courts have grossly erred in

decreeing the Plaintiff’s Suit. That there is no oral evidence on behalf of

the Plaintiff, who did not examine herself. That testimony of her

husband is required to be ignored and discarded. That since the Plaintiff

did not prove the case herself, the Suit ought to have been dismissed.

Page No. 4 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

He further submits that the Plaintiff suppressed ownership and

possession of several premises by her. He submits that she has three

alternate premises, out of which two premises are kept locked and

unused and one is rented out. That the Plaintiff did not approach the

Court with clean hands. He relies on judgment of this Court in

Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani V/s. Durgashankar G. Shroff &

Others

1

in support of his contention that it is the duty of the Plaintiff to

disclose in the pleading and evidence ownership of all premises. That in

the present case, Plaintiff failed to discharge the said duty and that

therefore her suit ought to have been dismissed.

6)Mr. Pathak further submits that the Plaintiff can make use of the

three properties in her possession and came out with false requirement

of suit premises. That Defendants’ family consists of 14 members

belonging to different generations, who reside in the suit premises.

That the Defendants are daily wage workers, who would suffer more

comparative hardship than the Plaintiff. That the Trial Court failed to

frame an issue relating to comparative hardship, which is a mandatory

requirement under Section 16(2) when the eviction is sought under

Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the MRC

Act). That the Trial and the Appellate Courts have erred in holding that

comparative hardship needs to be discussed only when plea in that

regard is raised by tenant in the written statement. That such plea was

indeed raised by the Defendants in the written statement. That

Defendants admittedly do not have any alternate premises, and that

12004(Supp.) Bom C.R.333

Page No. 5 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

therefore decree for eviction could not have been passed on the ground

of Plaintiff’s bonafide requirement.

7)So far as the issue of denial of Plaintiff’s title by the Defendants is

concerned, Mr. Pathak submits that the act was bonafide as the

Defendants never received any notice of acquisition of ownership in

respect of the suit premises by the Plaintiff. That the Plaintiff did not

prove service of notice of attornment of tenancy. That mere property

card cannot be a document of title. That for proving valid service of

notice upon the Defendants, Plaintiff ought to have examined the

postman, who allegedly effected the service. That failure to lead

evidence of postman goes to the root of the matter resulting into non-

service of notice on Defendants. In support, he relies on judgment of

this Court in Shelatkar Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V/s. Creative

Enterpirses & Anr.

2

He further submits that Maharashtra Rent Control

Act, does not recognise denial of title as a ground for recovery of

possession from the tenant, and in support he relies on judgment of

Delhi High Court in Lalit Dutt Sharma V/s. Lokesh Jasoria

3

. That in any

case, mere denial of title by the tenant does not automatically result in

eviction when questioning the title was a bonafide act of a tenant. He

relies on judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Ranbir Singh V/s. Asharfi

Lal

4

. On above broad submissions, Mr. Pathak would pray for setting

aside the impugned eviction decree.

22008(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 191

32018 SCC OnLine Del 10083

4(1995) 6 SCC 580

Page No. 6 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

8)The Revision is opposed by Mr. Darandale, the learned counsel

appearing for the Plaintiff. He submits that the concurrent findings of

fact are recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Courts, which do not

warrant interference in revisionary jurisdiction of this Court. That the

Plaintiff has proved, by leading cogent evidence, residence by 8 to 10

persons in Plaintiff’s family in the suit premises. That Plaintiff does not

own or possess any alternate premises capable of being put for

residence. That the Trial Court has rightly appreciated that no

residential premises are available for the Plaintiff or her family

members. That the Defendant cannot dictate terms to the Plaintiff-

landlady. That the bonafide need is genuine and concurrently upheld by

both the Courts.

9)Mr. Darandale further submits that the Defendants had full

knowledge of acquisition of ownership in respect of the suit premises by

the Plaintiff. That the admission to that effect is given in cross-

examination by Defendants’ witness-Jitendra. Similarly, Defendant-

Rajendra admitted during his evidence that he had received notices

dated 18 January 1996 as well as 28 August 2007. That the document of

title was produced alongwith the Plaint and Defendants still chose to

question title of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. That such

an act clearly fits into the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. He submits that the concurrent findings by the Trial

and the Appellate Courts on the issue of bonafide requirement and

denial of title are based on evidence warranting no interference by this

Court. In support, he has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in S.

Thangappan V/s. P. Padmavathy

5

and of this Court in Narendra

5(1999) 7 SCC 474

Page No. 7 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

Vyankatesh Tambat V/s. Pravinkumar Khushalchand Tated

6

. He prays

for dismissal of the Revision Application.

10)Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for my

consideration.

11)The Plaintiff has acquired ownership in respect of the suit

premises vide Sale Deed dated 26 June 2006. She instituted Suit for

eviction of the Defendants on grounds of default in payment of rent,

bonafide requirement and unauthorised additions and alternations in

the suit premises. In their written statement, Defendants feigned

ignorance about Plaintiff acquiring ownership in respect of the suit

premises. Defendants questioned title of the Plaintiff in respect of the

suit premises and denied existence of landlord-tenant relationship.

Therefore, the Trial Court framed additional issues relating to

Plaintiff’s entitlement to recover possession on account of denial of her

title by the Defendants as well as jurisdiction of Small Causes Court to

try and entertain the Suit. At the end of the trial, the Trial Court has

rejected the grounds of default in payment of rent and erection of

structure of permanent nature. Only the ground of bonafide

requirement came to be accepted by the Trial Court. Additionally, the

Trial Court also upheld Plaintiff’s entitlement to recover possession of

the suit premises on account of denial of title by the Defendants. The

findings of the Trial Court on issues of bonafide requirement and

Defendants’ denial of title of the Plaintiff are concurrently upheld by

the Appellate Court.

62016(l) Mh.L.J. 215

Page No. 8 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

12)So far as the ground of bonafide requirement is concerned, the

Plaintiff pleaded the case of 8 to 10 persons residing in three room flat

in her possession. Plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Plaint as

under:-

वादी यांना स्वत

:

च्या राहण्याकरीता स्वतंत्र अशी जागा नाही

.

वादी हे मोल मजुरी

करणारे असुन

,

त्यांचे पोट हातावरचे आहे

.

वादी ज्याठिकाणी सध्या रहात आहे

,

तो एक ३ रूमचा फ्लॅ ट असुन

,

त्याठिकाणी वादी

,

तिचे पती

,

दोन मोठी मुले

,

वादीची सासु व वादीचादिर

,

त्याची पत्नी व त्याची एक मुलगी असे ८ ते १०

माणसे वादीच्या कुटूंबात असुन

,

सदरची जागा वाढीस अत्यंत अपुरी पडत आहे

.

वादीचा मुलगा हा दहावी इयत्तेत असुन

,

त्यास अभ्यासासाठी जागा नाही

. पुढे

त्यास त्याच्या

शिक्षणासाठी अभ्यासासाठी जागा उपलब्ध नाही

.

वादीचा दुसरा

मुलगाशिक्षण घेत असुन त्यासही अभ्यासासाठी जागा नाही

.

तसेच वादीच्या

कुटूंबात वरील माणसे असल्याने वादीस प्रायव्हसी

(एकांतपणा)

भेटत नाही

.

वादीच्या कुटूंबात वादीचे

,

तिच्या सासुचे

,

दिराचे व भावजयीचे पटत नाही

, त्यामुळे

रोजच्या रोज भांडणे होत आहेत

.

त्यामुळे वादीच्या

,

तिच्या मुलांच्या पतीच्या

मनःस्थितीवर अनिष्ट परिणाम होत आहे

.

वादीच्या मुलांना अभ्यासासाठी

इतरांकडे जावे लागते

.

तर नवऱ्यासदिवसभर जागेच्या कमतरतेमुळे बाहेरच रहावे

लागते.

वादीस ते रहात असलेल्या फ्लॅ टमध्ये स्वतंत्र स्वयपांक करावा लागतो

आणिवादीच्या कुटूंबात असलेल्या कलहामुळे स्वयपाकही एकाठिकाणी करता

येत नाही

.

वादीसतिच्या स्वतःच्या कुटूंबास शांतपणे बसुन दोन घास खाताही येत

नाही.

पाण्यावरून भांडणे

,

बाथरूम वापरण्यावरून भांडणे

,

वीजेच्या बीला वरून

भांडणे,

तर वादीस साधा टीव्हीचाही उपभोग घेता येत नाही

.

वादी वतिच्या

कुटूंबाची प्रचंड कुचंबना जागेच्या कमतरते अभावी होत असुन

,

दावामिळकत ही

त्यांची स्वत

:

ची मालकी असल्याने त्या दावामिळकतीत राहणे व स्वतःच्या

वापरासाठी उपयोग करणे गैर नसुन

,

त्या मुद्यावरील कायदाही वादीच्या बाजुने

आहे.

प्रतिवादी हे भाडेकरी असुन

,

वादीने स्वतःच्या जागेच्या उपभोग न घेता

कितीदिवस अडचणीत काढावयाचे याचानिष्कर्शन्यायालयानेच काढावा

. सबब

वादीस दावामिळकतीची अत्यंत आवश्यकता वनिकड आहे

.

वादी रहात

असलेला फ्लॅ ट हा दावुसकर यांच्या मालकीचा असुन

,

त्यांनीसुध्दा वादीच्या मागे

सदरचा फ्लॅ ट परत देण्याविषयी वारंवार मागणी व तगादा लावला आहे

,

त्यांना वादी

रहात असलेला फ्लॅ ट परत हवा असुन

,

ते सुध्दा त्याठिकाणी रहावयास येण्याच्या

विचारात आहे

.

एकं दरीत वादीसतिचा न्यायीक हक्क म्हणुन दावामिळकतीचा

कब्जामिळणे गरजेचे आहे

.

तसेच दावामिळकतीचा ताबा वादीसंदिल्यास

प्रतिवादींना कसलाही त्रास होणार नाही

,

उलट वादीस ताबा नमिळाल्यास

वादीच्या कुटूंबाची सर्वांग दृष्टीकोणातुन वाताहत होईल

.

Page No. 9 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

13)Plaintiff’s children were taking education at the time of filing of

the Suit. By the time the Suit was decided in the year 2016, the

Plaintiff’s children had grown up adding to the difficulties in

accommodating them in the premises in her possession. Thus, Plaintiff

was able to prove her bonafide requirement in respect of her suit

premises. It is well settled position that Defendant cannot dictate terms

or question the need of the Plaintiff. So long as the need is not a mere

fanciful desire, the Court needs to accept genuineness of need

expressed by the Plaintiff. Afterall the landlady is the owner of tenanted

premises and Defendant/tenant cannot contend that the Plaintiff must

adjust in available premises or secure additional premises for

accommodating her family members. In the present case, Plaintiff’s

bonafide requirement is clearly established and findings recorded by the

Trial and the Appellate Courts do not suffer from the vice of perversity.

14)It is contended on behalf of the Applicants that the Plaintiff did

not approach the court with clean hands and suppressed ownership and

possession of several properties by her. Reliance is placed on judgment

of this Court in Tarachand Hassaram Shamdasani (supra) in which the

learned Single Judge of this Court has held in paragraph 8 as under:

8. To my mind, however, it is obligatory for the landlord to

disclose in the pleadings and in his evidence the fact that he owns

other premises which were capable of being utilized for the

requirement pressed into service in the suit filed against the tenant

and to further disclose and explain that inspite of those acquisition

and ownership of other premises, the requirement which is pressed

into service against the tenant would still survive. It is only then the

landlord would be entitled to invoke this ground and would succeed in

establishing his need to be bona fide and reasonable.

Page No. 10 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

15)No doubt, the Plaintiff has duty to disclose all the premises

owned and possession of all the premises. However, such disclosure is

required only in respect of the properties, which are capable of being

utilised for the requirement pressed into service. If requirement is for

residence of family members, it becomes incumbent for the Plaintiff to

disclose all properties in her/his possession/ownership, which can be

put to use for residence. In present case, after scrutiny of entire

evidence on record, the Trial and the Appellate Courts concurrently

held that Defendants could not establish ownership or possession of

any suitable alternate residential premises by the Plaintiff. Mere

possession of commercial premises or agricultural land is of no avail

nor there is any duty cast on the Plaintiff to make disclosures in respect

of the ownership or possession of agricultural land or commercial

premises. In my view, therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial and

the Appellate courts on the issue of non-availability of alternate

suitable residential premises do not warrant any interference in

exercise of revisionary jurisdiction of this Court.

16)I am not inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the

Applicants that the Trial Court has not conducted any enquiry into the

aspect of comparative hardship. Perusal of the findings recorded in

paragraph 38 of the judgment of the Trial Court would clearly indicate

conduct of enquiry into the issue of comparative hardship. Paragraph

38 reads thus:

३८

दावामिळकतीची वादीला वतिच्या कुटुंबाला गरज असुन दावामिळकतीचा ताबा

वादीलादिल्यास प्रतिवादीचे नुकसान होणार नाही असे वादीचे म्हणणे आहे

. प्र

तिवादींच्या

कुटुंबात व्यक्ती राहत असल्यामुळे दावा मंजुर के ल्यास प्रतिवादींचे नुकसान होईल

, असे

प्रतिवादींचे म्हणणे आहे

.

Page No. 11 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

It therefore cannot be contended that the Trial Court’s judgment is

silent on the aspect of comparative hardship. After recording the above

finding, the Trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record

and has thereafter upheld the ground of bonafide requirement. The

Appellate Court framed a specific Issue No. 4 on comparative hardship

and has answered the same against the Defendants. The Appellate

Court has taken into consideration Plaintiff’s averment that Defendant

Nos. 3 and 4 do not reside in the suit premises and the factum of they

not filing the written statement denying the plea. Therefore Applicants’

contention that the issue of comparative hardship is not decided is

misconceived.

17)Coming to the issue of Defendants denying Plaintiff’s title, in my

view, the Defendants have incurred a disqualification from holding onto

the tenanted premises by venturing into act of denial of Plaintiff’s title

in respect of the suit premises. This was done by the Defendants

essentially for opposing the ground of non-payment of rent. Otherwise,

there was no need for Defendants to question Plaintiff’s title in respect

of the suit premises. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act debars a

tenant from denying title of the landlord in respect of the tenanted

premises. Such denial results into forfeiture of tenancy. The

Defendants’ defence of absence of knowledge about Plaintiff securing

title is proved to be false. Defendant’s witness-Jitendra has given an

express admission during the course of his cross-examination in which

he has stated that ‘वादीच्या नावाची नोंद झालेले व दाव्यात दाखल के लेले

मालमत्ता पत्रक मी पहिले आहे.’ Furthermore, before institution of the Suit

Page No. 12 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

the Plaintiff had served notices dated 18 January 1996 and 28 August

2007. Defendant’s witness- Rajendra has admitted that notice dated 28

August 2007 was received by him. Therefore, Defendants alleged

ignorance about acquisition of ownership in the suit premises by the

Plaintiff is clearly found to be false. Most importantly, Plaintiff filed

documents of ownership alongwith the Plaint. The written statement

was filed by the Defendants after having full opportunity of going

through the documents filed alongwith the Plaint. Despite this position,

Defendants took a calculated risk of denying Plaintiff’s title in respect

of the suit premises.

18)Mr. Pathak’s contention that denial of title is not a ground

specified in MRC Act for eviction cannot be countenanced. There is

specific estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act against a tenant

from denying title of the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.

The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Lalit Dutt Sharma (supra) is

rendered in peculiar facts of that case which cannot be cited in support

of abstract principle that tenant can never incur forfeiture of tenancy

despite denying landlord’s title to the suit premises. Mr. Darandale’s

reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in S. Thangappan (supra) in this

regard is apposite. In connection with Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and

Rent Control) Act, 1960 the Apex Court had held denial of Plaintiff’s

title by the tenant to be a fit ground for eviction of the tenant. This

Court in Narendra Vyankatesh Tambat (supra) has held that tenant

incurs forfeiture of tenancy upon repudiation of relationship with the

landlord.

Page No. 13 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

19)In the present case, it cannot be contended by any stretch of

imagination that Plaintiff’s denial of title by the Defendants was

bonafide in any manner. It was clearly mischievous act aimed at

justifying non-payment of rent. The Defendants had fully acquired

knowledge of Plaintiff becoming owner of the suit premises. The

Defendants had not paid rent in respect of the suit premises since the

year 1981. The Defendants took benefit of provisions of Section 15(3) of

the MRC Act and deposited rent of Rs.21,740/- in the Court to avoid

decree of eviction. However, before doing so, they deliberately

questioned title of the Plaintiff with a view to justify their act of non-

payment of rent to the Plaintiff. In such circumstances, the Defendants’

act of denial of title of the Plaintiff cannot be termed as bonafide in any

manner and their reliance on judgment in Dr. Ranbir Singh (supra) is

inapposite. Mr. Pathak has relied on Shelatkar Construction Pvt. Ltd.

(supra) in support of his contention that examination of postman is

necessary for proving service of notice. In the present case, Defendants’

witness-Rajendra has admitted receipt of notice dated 28 August 2007.

Therefore, it was not necessary to lead any additional evidence to prove

service of notice.

20)Considering the overall conspectus of the case, this Court is not

inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial

and the Appellate Courts on the issues of bonafide requirement and

denial of landlady’s title by the Defendants. Pendency of the

proceedings for the last 18 long years has assisted the Defendants in

occupying the suit premises. Time has come for the Defendants to give

Page No. 14 of 15

8 April 2026

Megha 27_cra_326_2022_fc.odt

up the possession of the suit premises, which are owned by the Plaintiff,

and who genuinely needs the same.

21)Civil Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. Considering

the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate not to

impose any costs on the Applicants.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

22)After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel

appearing for the Applicants prays for continuation of stay granted

by this Court for a period of six weeks. Accordingly, the interim order

granted by this Court on 18 April 2022 shall continue to operate for a

period of six weeks.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 15 of 15

8 April 2026