RAHIMTULLA ABDUL RAHIMAN NAKIB Vs. CHANDRAKANT ANANT MOOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, a question of law has been raised, but I am relieved of entering into a detailed discussion of the same because that has been already. Decided by authorities which are binding upon me. The petitioner is the tenant of a room forming part of a building bearing C. T. S. No. 2167 situate at Kolhapur and the respondents father was the original owner of the said house. It is an admitted position that the respondents' father has died and the respendents are some of the legal representatives of the original owner. If has been brought on record that apart from the five respondents, their father left behind him this widow and three daughters. The foundation of the agruments advanced in the two Courts below and repeated before me is this fact that it is not the five respondents alone who are the owners of the suit premises, but their mother and the three staters are also owners of the came.

(2.) Regular Civil Suit No. 438 orf 1973 was filed by the five respondents for possession of the suit premises on the ground, among other, that the patitioner was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months and the has not complied with the requirements mentioned in Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act" Both the Courts below have upheld the claim of the respondents and decreed the suit for possession. The trial Court passed the decree on 31st Jan., 1976, which has been confirmed by the Appeal Court in Civil Appeal No. 172 of 1976 its judgment and order dated 30th of June 1977. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constn.

(3.) Mr. Bandivadekar, the learned Advocate appearing in Support of the petition, has repeated the challenge as to the compelence of the respondents to file the suit when the other heirs of the original landlord have not been jointed either in giving the notice under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act of in the suit which was filed for possession. Mr. Bandivadekar has contended that the relience placed by the learned Assistant Judge on the judgment of this Court in Nishramal Chhogala v. N. B. Patel. (1963) 65 Bom LR 15, is wrond because subsequently this judgment has been distinguished by Bhasme J. In Mohan Sons Pvt Ltd. V. Sonoo Jamsetiji Mr. Bandivadekar has naturally relied upon the later judgment which apparently supports his contentionn that some only of the owners of a building cannot file a suit for possession under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.