: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.683 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.315 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.683 OF 2008 Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. (Deleted), United Spirit Ltd. .. Applicants V/s. Haresh Chuharmal Chandiramani .. Respondent Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. N.P. Shimpi for the Applicants. Mr. P.R. Ramon with Mr. S.R. Tejpal i/b. Tejpal & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicants are a Public Limited Company having paid-up share capital over Rs.1 crore. The respondent, his brother and two sisters have leased out Flat Nos.A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 in Sangam Bhavan, Ground Floor, opposite Strand Cinema, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. It appears that Flat Nos. A-3, A-4 and A-5 were purchased by the applicants from the owners of those flats. However Flat No. A-2 continued to remain in the ownership of the : 2 : respondent. According to the plaintiff, the defendants-applicants were in unauthorized occupation of the premises after the tenancy was terminated by him in 2001. The plaintiff-respondent filed a Suit for ejectment in view of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 2. Both the Courts below have found that the defendants-applicants were not entitled to continue in the suit premises as the plaintiff-respondent had established that he had terminated the tenancy, legally and after notice. 3. The main contention raised on behalf of the defendants-applicants today before this Court is : (i). that Flat No.A-2 was not identifiable since after the purchase of the aforesaid four flats, the applicants had demolished the internal walls and, therefore, the identity of Flat No. A-2 could not be established. : 3 : (ii).That the Suit was not filed by all the co-owners but by only one person although the lease deed was signed by all the four persons. Thus, in these circumstances, the Suit itself was not maintainable. 4. I have considered these submissions and find that they are without merit. As pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff- respondent, in reply to the letter terminating the tenancy, the defendants-applicants had recognized the plaintiff as the owner of the Flat No.A-2 which was occupied by them. Furthermore, admittedly, Flat Nos. A-3, A-4 and A-5 had been purchased by the defendants-applicants and, therefore, if those flats were identified, Flat No.A-2 could also be identified. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent has been recognized as the owner of Flat No. A-2 of which the defendants-applicants were tenants. Besides this, the trial Court has observed that the issue regarding the identity of the suit premises had not : 4 : been raised in the reply to the notice terminating the lease. Significantly no evidence was led by the defendants-applicants before the trial Court. 5. As regards the other submission, in my opinion, it is now well settled that even assuming for the sake of arguments that all four persons were co- owners of the suit flat, a Suit can be filed for ejectment by one of the co-owners. However, in the present case this issue does not arise as the defendants-applicants had recognized the plaintiff- respondent as the owner of Flat No. A-2. 6. In these circumstances, I see no reasons to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. 7. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 8. In view of the above, Civil Application No.315 of 2008 does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......