Judgment :- ADMIT The civil revision application is heard finally. 2. Few facts giving rise to the civil revision application are stated thus----- The applicants had filed Small Cause Suit bearing no.123/2001 against the non-applicants for recovery of possession under Section 16(a) and 16(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It was the case of the applicants that the non-applicant no.2 was occupying the premises as the tenant thereof and the applicants required the premises for their bona fide need. A decree for possession of the suit premises was claimed only against the non-applicant no.2. It was stated in the suit that to the northern side of the shop premises leased out to the non-applicant no.2, there was another shop premises leased out by the applicants in favour of the non-applicant no.1. According to the applicants, both, the nonapplicant nos.1 and 2, had, without the consent and permission of the applicants, broken a portion of the partition wall in between the two shop premises. 3. The suit filed by the applicants was decreed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amravati, by a judgment dated 31.03.2006. The trial Court held that the applicants bonafide required the suit premises occupied by the non-applicant no.2 for their occupation and the non-applicant no.2 should, therefore, handover the vacant possession of the suit shop to the applicants within a period of two months from the date of the order. The Court further held that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving that the non-applicant nos.1 and 2 had altered the premises without their knowledge. It is necessary to note that though a decree was passed against the non-applicant no.2, the non-applicant no.2 did not challenge the same and the non-applicant no.1, the original defendant no.2, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2006 before the District Judge, Amravati. According to the applicants, the appeal filed by the nonapplicant no.1 was not tenable as an appeal could lie only against the decree and also because there was no adverse finding against the nonapplicant no.1 in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The applicants, therefore, filed an application for the dismissal of the appeal. The first appellate Court, however, by the impugned order dated 21.07.2007, rejected the application filed by the applicants for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it was not tenable. 4. The applicants, therefore, filed an application for the dismissal of the appeal. The first appellate Court, however, by the impugned order dated 21.07.2007, rejected the application filed by the applicants for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it was not tenable. 4. Shri A.K. De, the learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the first appellate court committed a serious error in rejecting the application filed by the applicants and holding that the appeal was tenable as it was a continuation of a suit. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the Court committed an illegality in holding that the appeal could not have been dismissed for the sake of avoiding further complications between the parties. The learned counsel for the applicants relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 1989 to substantiate the submission that it is only an aggrieved person, who can file an appeal and an appeal lies only against a decree and not a mere finding in the judgment. 5. Shri B.M. Waranashiwar, the learned counsel for the non-applicants, supported the order passed by the first appellate Court on 21.07.2007 and submitted that this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court on 21.07.2007 as the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity while deciding the issue of the tenability of the appeal. It is submitted on behalf of the non-applicants that the appeal was tenable in law and hence, the application filed by the applicants was rightly rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the impugned order dated 21.07.2007. On a reading of the order dated 21.07.2007, it is clear that the first appellate Court committed gross illegality in rejecting the application filed by the applicants for dismissal of the appeal. It is well settled that an appeal could be filed only by a person who is prejudicially or adversely affected by a decree and an appeal lies only against a decree and not a finding. In this case, the decree is passed by the trial Court only against the non-applicant no.2. The non-applicant no.2 has not, however, preferred any appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court. Actually, no relief was sought by the applicant against the non-applicant no.1 in the suit instituted by them. In this case, the decree is passed by the trial Court only against the non-applicant no.2. The non-applicant no.2 has not, however, preferred any appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court. Actually, no relief was sought by the applicant against the non-applicant no.1 in the suit instituted by them. In fact, though it was pleaded by the applicants in the suit that the non-applicant nos.1 and 2 had broken a portion of the partition wall in between the premises let out to the non-applicant nos.1 and 2, the trial Court had decided that issue against the applicants with the result that the trial Court had not rendered any adverse finding against the non-applicant no.1. Thus, there was neither an adverse finding against the non-applicant no.1 nor was the decree passed against the non-applicant no.1. In these circumstances, the first appellate Court ought to have held that the appeal filed by the non-applicant no.1 was not tenable. The first appellate Court, however, erroneously rejected the application filed by the applicants on the ground that the appeal is a continuation of the suit and to avoid further complications, it was necessary to decide the appeal on merits. The approach of the first appellate Court in deciding the application filed by the applicants was not just and proper. The law laid down in judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 1989 and relied on by the learned counsel for the applicants clearly applies to the case in hand and supports the case of the applicants. 7. In the result, the civil revision application is allowed. The order passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-5, Amravati on 21.07.2007 is hereby set aside. The application, Exh.13, in Regular Civil Appeal No.72/2006 is hereby allowed thereby dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No.72/2006 filed by the non-applicant no.1. In the facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.