CRA 4/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 4/2011 Ashok s/o Lekhraj Mehta and another Vs. Mulani Haidar Ali Osman and another. Mr. V.J. Dixit h/f Senior Counsel, I/b Mr. L.V. Sangit, for applicants. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 14th January, 2011. PER COURT : 1 This revision is filed against the concurrent findings of the Court below, directing the applicant to vacate the suit premises. The respondents had filed suit for eviction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 2 They raised two grounds for evicting the applicants. One was default in payment of rent and the second was bonafide requirement. The applicants in defence raised a ground that they were not tenants in occupation of the suit premises but had taken possession of the suit premises as purchasers. On facts, both the Courts held against the applicants. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the applicant raised two points. First is that there was no express attornment of tenancy in favour of the respondents. Admittedly, the respondents purchased the suit property in the year 2004 from the previous owner one Shrivastav CRA 4/2011 2 who had put the applicant in possession of the suit premises, in the year 2002. It is also an admitted fact that when the applicant took possession of the suit premises, he had agreed to purchase the suit property and the agreement was executed to that effect between the applicants and previous owner Shrivastav but on the same day, the applicant also agreed to pay rent to Shrivastav, for his use and occupation of the suit premises. As said above, after two years in year 2004 Shrivastav sold the suit property to the respondents in December, 2004. But admittedly, after the respondents purchased the suit property, they did not send a notice informing the applicants that they had purchased the suit property and had entered the shoes of the previous landlord Shrivastav. However, before filing of this suit, they had sent a notice demanding arrears of rent and possession on the ground of bona filed requirement. In view of these actions on the part of the respondent, formal attornment of tenancy was not required. The applicant became aware that his landlord has changed and that the respondents have become his landlords. 4. The second point raised by Mr. Dixit the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant is that the Courts below did not specifically state as to whether the suit was filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The suit was filed in year 2004 when the said statute was in force. Shri Dixit states that the respondent had filed suit under the provisions of Bombay Rent Control Act which was then not in force. He said, on this count the suit should fail. I am not inclined to agree with this submission. In the year 2004, the provisions of Bombay Rent Act were no more in CRA 4/2011 3 force but at that time and even today the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act are/were applicable to the dispute between the parties. Only because the respondent / plaintiff did not mention in the plaint that they had filed the suit under the provisions of the said Act, does not mean that they should be deprived of the relief which they are otherwise entitled to, under the provisions of that statute. The Courts below have given cogent reasons for giving findings on facts. In view of this, there is no reason why the revision should be admitted. ORDER a) The revision stands dismissed. b) The applicant shall have three months' time to vacate the suit premises. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) ts k/ok