1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.345 OF 2010 SUMITRABAI RAMLAL PETHE & ORS ..VS.. SURESH HARISHCHANDRA PITAMBARWALE Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 9/8/2010 Heard Shri Dangore, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mohta, the learned counsel for the respondents. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the respondents/ plaintiff for eviction and possession. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were residing in the suit property as tenants. A permission was obtained from the Rent Controller by filing the proceedings in the year 1978 for issuing a quit notice to the defendants. The Rent Controller had granted permission and had also held that the plaintiff was the owners of the suit property. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property, whereas one Sonuseth -grandfather of the plaintiff was the owner of the same. The defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit. Both the courts on an appreciation of the evidence on record held that the defendants were liable to be evicted from the suit property. The submission made on behalf of the appellants that one of the married daughters of the defendant 2 no.1 Sumitrabai was not served in the matter, though she was a joint tenant and hence the suit was liable to be dismissed, is liable to be rejected in view of the law laid down by this court in the judgment reported in (2007) 1 Bombay Cases Reporter 974, whereby it is held by this court that a notice served on a acting member or joint tenant constitutes a valid service of all the joint tenants and it is not necessary to serve all the members of the family. Moreover, in the instant case the mother as well as the son were served by the plaintiffs and only the married daughter was not served and hence in view of the judgment reported in (2007)1 Bombay Case Reporter 974 it could be said that there was a valid service of notice on the married daughter also. The other submission made on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property is also liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the Rent Controller had already held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and was entitled to grant of permission under clause 13of the Rent Control Order to issue quit notice to the defendants. As held by this court in the judgment reported in 1983 BCI 51 the Rent Controller had already given a finding on the said issue. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. On a oral request made on behalf of the appellants by Shri Dangore, the appellants are however, granted 4 months time to vacate the suit premises as the appeal is decided in the midst of the rainy season. The appellants should however, positively vacate the suit premises on or before 9.12.2010. JUDGE SMP.