1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1651 of 2008. [Alpasankhanyank Lok Kalyan Shikshan Sanstha thr. Its Sect. Shri Ramesh S/o Ramaji Dahiwale] Vs. [Vasantrao S/o Narayan Madavi & others] ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri C. F. Bhagwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram: A. H. JOSHI, J. Dated: 24th April 2008. 1. The petitioner has urged two grounds challenging the Judgment as follows: (1) That the notice under section 15(2) is defective as it does not comply with the statutory requirement of Section 15 (2) since demand of specific amount is not made, and hence, the suit for ejectment based on such notice is bad. (2) The change of user as a ground for breach is not proved by bring on record original of lease. 2 2. The Learned Advocate Shri Bhagwani placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions. (1) (1977)1 Supreme Court cases 254, Prem Chand Vs. The District Judge, Dehradun and another. (2) 2000(3) Bom. C. R. 230 (Supreme Court) Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri & others Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aher (Dead) through L. Rs. (3) 2005(1) ALL MR 74, Sitaram Narayan Shinde & Ors. Vs. Ibrahim Ismail Rais & Ors. (4) 2006(3) Mh.L.J., Mahavir Tea Company and others Vs. Additional Collector, Nagpur and others 210. 3. After perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the default is conclusive. It is not just based on notice, but is also based on decree for payment which is confirmed. May be for this reasons, the petitioner has not attacked the finding on the ground of the default being vitiated due to 3 perversity of any other reason, but simply banks upon the alleged deficiency in language of the notice 4. Admittedly, the premises were let out for running the educational institution. The Secretary Shri Dahiwale has admitted in his cross examination that his personal property has been attached in execution proceedings and is residing in the suit premises. 5. In the background that when admittedly the suit premises were let out for educational purpose, yet are used for residential purposes, it is duly proved that there is a change of user. This finding, therefore, cannot be faulted on the ground that the document of lease is not filed. It has not been disputed in the oral submission that the property was let out for educational purpose. 4 6. Considering this factual aspect, the petitioner's reliance on judgments cited by him is of no help. 7. Petition does not merit any interference. It is dismissed. JUDGE Sbm