1 CRA No.138/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.138 of 2011 (1) Vittal Narvekar since deceased through heirs 1(a) Mr.Dilip Vittal Narvekar 1(b) Mrs.Shubhangi Sudhakar Murkar 1(c) Mrs.Shraddha C. Patil 2. Ankush Vithal Narvekar 3. Lahu Vithal Narvekar 4. Smita Lahu Narvekar 5. Ashish Lahu Narvekar ... Applicants versus 1. Santosh Chandrakant Dhuru 2. Rajendra Chandrakant Dhuru 3. Smt.Ranjana Chandrakant Dhuru(deceased) 4. Shirish Chandrakant Dhuru 5. Smt.Sarita Chandrakant Dhuru ... Respondents ... Mr.Ashutosh Kulkarni for the applicant 2 CRA No.138/11 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 24th February 2011 P.C. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 30 October 2010 passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai allowing the appeal by the respondent landlord and thereby passing a decree for possession. 2. Respondents are the landlords and Mr.Vithal Narvekar (who is arrayed as applicant no.1) by his L.Rs was the tenant of the respondents. He was in arrears of rent from 1983. Therefore, by a notice of demand dated 4 December 1999, the respondents demanded the arrears of rent and also terminated the tenancy. The notice was also addressed to applicant nos.2 to 4, who were in occupation of the suit premises as heirs of Vithal. Despite notice, no rent was paid. The respondents therefore filed a suit for eviction. The suit was dismissed but on appeal, the appeal was allowed and the appellate court has passed a decree for possession on the ground of default in payment of the rent. 3. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the original tenant Mr.Vithal Narvekar had died prior to the issuance of notice and since the notice was addressed to him, the notice of demand was not legal and valid and no decree could be passed on the ground of default in the absence of a valid notice. A copy of the notice handed over to me by Mr.Kulkarni shows that the notice 3 CRA No.138/11 was addressed to five persons viz. Mr.Vithal Narvekar himself and his children i.e. Applicant nos. 2 to 4. Since the notice was also addressed to the heirs who were residing with Vithal Narvekar at the time of his death, it cannot be said that it was not a valid notice of demand. Merely by showing the name of Vithal Narvekar as the original tenant who had died as one of the addrresses the notice does not become illegal. The applicants ought to have tendered the rent after receipt of the notice of demand. I see no error in the decision of the lowe appellate court passing a decree for eviction on the ground of default. Revision Application is accordingly rejected summarily. 4. After this order was pronounced in the open court, learned counsel for the applicants pray that the decree for eviction may be stayed for some time to enable the applicants to challenge this order in appeal. It is accordingly directed that the decree for execution shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today subject to the applicants filing an undertaking in this court in the usual form within two weeks. In the event undertaking is not filed within two weeks, decree can be executed forthwith. (D.G.KARNIK, J)