JUDGMENT Z.A. HAQ, J. Heard Mr. Khapre, learned Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Aurangabadkar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 7. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner-landlord had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 145 of 2006 praying for decree of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. The decree for eviction was prayed on the ground that the suit premises are required by the plaintiff for starting his own business. The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit premises are gifted by the father of the plaintiff by Gift Deed registered on 19th January 2006. The plaintiff has pleaded that he is having experience to start business of Computers and Mobiles and he is having sufficient funds to start his business. The Trial Court, by the judgment dated 19th December 2009, concluded that the plaintiff has proved that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and defendants, that the plaintiff has proved that he required possession of the suit premises for his bona-fide need and that greater hardship would be caused to the plaintiff, if the decree for eviction is not granted. 4. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 had challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in R.C.A. No. 109/2010. The respondent nos. 05 and 06 had challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by filing R.C.A. No. 129/2010. The Appellate Court by common judgment dated 26th July 2011 partly allowed the appeals and set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as far as the claim of eviction/possession is concerned. The petitioner/landlord has filed this petition challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. 5. Mr. Khapre, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Court has committed patent illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for eviction/possession on the ground that the plaintiff is a member of joint family is running business along with his father and his brother. Mr. Khapre, learned Advocate has submitted that the Appellate Court has misled itself by, coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff can continue the business along with the members of his family. According to Mr. Mr. Khapre, learned Advocate has submitted that the Appellate Court has misled itself by, coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff can continue the business along with the members of his family. According to Mr. Khapre, the Appellate Court has come to the erroneous conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of eviction/possession, as there is a vacant shop block owned by the father of the plaintiff where the plaintiff can run his business. According to Mr. Khapre, there is no prohibition in any law which puts any restraint on the plaintiff to seek decree for possession of his own premises to start his own business. 6. Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has supported the judgment passed by the Appellate Court. Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate has submitted that the gift deed dated 19th January 2006 though is a registered document, but it has been executed in the name of the plaintiff only to enable him to file the suit for eviction/possession. The submission of the respondents tenants is that intention of the plaintiff and his father has to be taken into consideration and according to him, the facts on the record show that gift deed has been executed only to oust the tenants from the suit shop block. The respondents have submitted that the family of the plaintiff is running several businesses and having several properties and one shop block owned by the father of the plaintiff is still vacant and, therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff. Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate has submitted that the original respondent no.4 - Abhijeet was minor when the Civil Suit was filed and no permission was sought from the Court to file and continue the suit against minor and, therefore, filing of Civil Suit against minor, itself is illegal. The respondents have submitted that the pleadings and averments in the plaint are not sufficient to grant a decree for eviction/possession in favour of the plaintiff as the basic pleadings about bona-fide need are not incorporated in the plaint. Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate has submitted that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving that he intends to start his independent business and does not want to continue with the business of the joint family. Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate has submitted that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving that he intends to start his independent business and does not want to continue with the business of the joint family. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that there is no endorsement on the gift deed that the plaintiff has accepted the gift and, therefore, gift itself has not taken effect. 7. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. 8. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the suit shop block and intends to start his own business. I find that the pleadings are sufficient on record to show that the plaintiff is having experience and funds to start his own business. The respondents have not brought anything on record to show that the plaintiff is having any other property where he can start his own business. The submission of the respondents that the plaintiff can continue his business along with family members in the property owned by his father is not acceptable in law. The respondents have not been able to point out any prohibition in law which restrains the plaintiff from starting his own business independently in his own premises. 9. The submission on behalf of the respondents that they have not accepted the plaintiff as landlord is contrary to the record. In fact, there is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that the plaintiff has proved relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and the respondents have not challenged the findings of the Appellate Court against them. In this view, I am not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondents that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. Further more, original defendant no. 1 has admitted in her evidence that the notice of attornment given by the plaintiff and his father was received. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the respondents in this regard is not acceptable. 10. Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiff, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he is not aware about the factual aspects including about the execution of the gift deed. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the respondents in this regard is not acceptable. 10. Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the plaintiff, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he is not aware about the factual aspects including about the execution of the gift deed. In my view, the respondents-tenants have no right to challenge the registered gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by his father. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2003 SC 2077 (Lingala Kiondala Rao Vs. Vootukkuri Narayana Rao) has laid down that the plea about validity of gift by father to his son is not tenable in eviction suit and the motive behind execution of the document conferring title on the landlord cannot be allowed to be gone into so long as the document has been executed and registered in accordance with law and the transaction is otherwise legal. In view of this, the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the father of the plaintiff has executed the gift deed with the intention to oust the defendants from the suit premises cannot be considered. 11. Defendant no. 4 - Abhijeet was minor at the time of filing of the suit and is shown to be represented by his mother. Though the submission of Mr. Paunikar, learned Advocate about the defect in the suit prima facie appears to be proper, it is relevant to consider that the defendant no. 4 - Abhijeet after attaining majority has not raised any challenge and continued to oppose the claim of the plaintiff and he has even filed the appeal before the District Court after attaining majority. Moreover, defendant no. 4 -Abhijeet has contested the suit and the appeal along with other defendants. Further more, the Appellate Court has not reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the suit against minor was not proper and was not maintainable. 12. The finding given by the Appellate Court that the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of eviction/possession on the ground that he being member of joint family is already running business along with his family members and it cannot be said that he requires suit premises for his own business is perverse and unsustainable in law. 13. Mr. Aurnagbadkar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 13. Mr. Aurnagbadkar, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 7 has submitted that the Appellate Court has reversed the judgment passed by the Trial Court on the ground that greater hardship would be caused to the tenants, if the decree for eviction/possession is granted, as it is an admitted position that one shop block owned by the father of the plaintiff is available for the use of the plaintiff. In my view, the availability of shop block owned by the father of the plaintiff cannot be a ground for denying the decree for eviction/possession to the plaintiff to start his own business in his own shop block. The plaintiff cannot be put at the mercy of any other person when he is having his own property and wants to start business in his own property. Moreover, the submission made by Mr. Aurangabadkar is not acceptable as respondents 5 and 7 are admittedly not occupying the shop and it cannot be said that they are put to any prejudice because of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 14. It is undisputed that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was challenged by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 109/2010 and by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 129/2010. Respondent no.7 (Original defendant no. 8) did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and had accepted it. The natural consequence is that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for eviction had become final against respondent no. 7 (original defendant no. 8). The learned Advocates appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have not been able to point out that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was severable and, therefore, in my view, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for eviction having become final against respondent no.7 (original defendant no. 8), it could not have been interfered by the Appellate Court, as is clear the interference by the Appellate Court with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had resulted in contradictory decree. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. 15. 8), it could not have been interfered by the Appellate Court, as is clear the interference by the Appellate Court with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had resulted in contradictory decree. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. 15. In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court on 26th July, 2011 is set aside and the judgment passed by the Trial Court on 19th December, 2009 is restored. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. 16. The defendants are granted six months time to vacate the premises, if they file an undertaking before this Court within four weeks that they will vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. On failure on the part of the defendants to file the undertaking, the plaintiff will be at liberty to execute the decree. Petition allowed.