1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7900 OF 2010 Diana D’souza and ors. ..Petitioners. Vs Justin Francis Cardoz and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. K.V.Tambe Advocate i/by Ms. Madhavi S. Nalawade for the Petitioner. Mr. Thomas Almedia for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Rupesh Sohani, Advocate for the Respondents 3 to 5. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010. P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, permission is granted to convert this petition into a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Registry is directed to assign the number to the Civil Revision Application. 2 The Petitioners are the original defendants-tenants. The 1st Respondent filed a suit for eviction in the Court of Small Causes on various grounds such as arrears of rent and bonafide requirement. Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the decree has been confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 2 invited attention of the Court to the description of the suit premises in Paragraph 1 of the plaint. He submitted that the said description is not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 3 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procoedure, 1908 inasmuch as the city survey number or the survey number has not been set out. He submitted that the city survey number has not been deliberately set out as the land below the suit premises has been declared as a slum area. He, therefore, submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable on account of non compliance of the Rule 3 of Order VII of the said Code. 4 I have given the careful consideration to the submissions. There is no dispute that the predecessor of the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the room No.1 which is more particularly described in Para 1 of the plaint. In view of this admitted position, the Courts below have held that there was a substantial compliance by the first respondent-plaintiff of the requirements of Rule 3 of Order VII of the Code inasmuch as description of the suit premises in the plaint was more than sufficient to identify the suit premises. In fact, there is no dispute as regards the identity of the suit premises. Hence, this is not a fit case for interference in Revisional jurisdiction. Hence, Revision is rejected. JUDGE