M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application under Sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14. 10. 1981 passed by the learned assistant Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1981 dismissing the appeal with cost. ( 2 ) ). The facts of the petitioners case as can be recapitulated from the judgment of the appellate Court are : The petitioners being the plaintiffs filed Rent Suit No. 211 of 1977 against the defendant-tenant for obtaining possession of the ground floor of the building bearing no. 2/2344 situated in Sagrampura, Anavil-Sheri, Surat, described herein as the suit premises. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant alone resides in the suit premises and he is tenant therein. He having built up and/or acquired suitable vacant possession of a residential premises in Purnima Society at Ghod Dod Road, Surat, he was liable to be evicted from the suit premises by virtue of the provisions contained in sec. 13 (1) (1) of the Rent Act. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant has also got ancestral building in village Abhva. The defendant resisted the suit inter-alia on the ground that his father Nanubhai Nagarji Naik had hired the suit premises in the year 1942 and on his demise in the year 1964, the defendant, his brother Chhaganlal, their mother and sister inherited the tenancy rights since they all resided together. The defendants sister died in the suit premises in the year 1966. His mother also died. It was, therefore, contended by the defendant that he and his brother Chhaganbhai became the tenants of the suit premises. It was the case of the defendant that Chhaganbhai had gone to Utran to stay there on account of his job and then he was transferred to Rander and from Rander to udhna, but on various occasions he alongwith the members of his family used to occupy the suit premises with the defendant. Even on weekly holidays he used to occupy the suit premises with the defendant. Even on weekly holidays he used to occupy the suit premises with the defendant. With regard to the house at village Abhva, it is the case of the defendant that the said property is joint family property of himself and his brother and it is devoid of any facility and it is not possible to reside in that house. He has contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. ( 3 ) ). Both the Courts below held that the defendant alone was not the tenant of the suit premises and that his brother Chhaganbhai also inherited the tenancy right along with the defendant and in that view of the matter, both the Courts below held that although the defendant acquired suitable residence as alleged by the plaintiffs since Chhaganbhai did not acquire the said residence, the plaintiffs could not be held to have proved his right to get decree for eviction under Sec. 13 (1x1) of the Rent Act. ( 4 ) ). I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the rival parties. ( 5 ) ). It is firstly submitted by Mr. Shelat, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have erred in holding that the defendant alone is not the tenant. He in the alternative submitted that if it was found that the defendant alone was not the tenant the courts below ought to have held that it was for the defendant to apply for his brother chhaganbhai being joined as party to the suit and/or having got the question of transmission of tenancy being decided. I cannot agree with this submission of Mr. Shelat. The defendant has established the facts alleged by him and upon appreciation of the evidence, both the Courts below have found that by virtue of intestate succession alongwith the defendant, Chhaganbhai also inherited the tenancy right. That being the position, it was quite obvious for the Courts below to negative the case of the plaintiffs with regard to their entitlement to get possession of the suit premises from only the defendant. By virtue of the right in the tenancy not only Chhaganbhai should have been joined as party to the suit, he would have been entitled to the statutory notice either under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or even under Sec. 12 of the Rent Act. By virtue of the right in the tenancy not only Chhaganbhai should have been joined as party to the suit, he would have been entitled to the statutory notice either under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or even under Sec. 12 of the Rent Act. Hence, it is not possible to disturb the findings of the Courts below on the first question, namely, that Chhaganbhai would be a necessary party, he having inherited tenancy right alongwith the defendant. ( 6 ) ). It has then been contended by Mr. Shelat that having come to the conclusion that Chhaganbhai was a necessary party and the suit is to fail on that count, no finding could have been recorded on the plaintiffs case with regard to acquisition of suitable residence. There is some substance in this submission of Mr. Shelat. It is clear that but for the presence of Chhaganbhai the entitlement to get decree for eviction under Sec. 13 (1) (1) of the Rent Act could not have been pressed into service. This is clear from the appreciation of the evidence by both the Courts below to the effect that it was the defendant who had acquired the house in Purnima Society at Ghod Dod Road, Sural However, in so far as chhaganbhai was concerned neither Chhaganbhai was before the Court nor the plaintiffs had any opportunity to have his say in respect of whether Chhaganbhai had any alternative residence. In any case, by virtue of the finding on the first point, it is clear, the Courts below ought not to have gone into the substantive case of the plaintiffs. Hence, the second point would deserve a finding to the effect that the said issue would not survive. ( 7 ) ). With the aforesaid observations with regard to second issue, this petition shall have to be dismissed. Following order is, therefore, passed. Rule is discharged with no order as to cost. .