1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.74 of 2010 (Swati Paliwal alias Swati d/o Purnandji Sharma and others v. Sanjay Madhukar Patrikar and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri D.C. Daga, Advocate for Applicants. Shri P.Y. Markandeywar, Advocate for Respondents. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 6 th September, 2010 This civil revision application challenges the order dated 18-6-2010 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, below Exhibit 12 filed by the applicants, who are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.345 of 2009. The application was filed under order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action. The Trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that the eviction is sought not only on the ground of recovery of rent, but also on the ground of personal use and occupation of the suit premises by the plaintiffs. Shri Daga, learned counsel for the applicants, has invited my attention to para 19 of the plaint, which is reproduced below : 2 “The cause of action for filing the present suit arose when the plaintiffs have purchased the suit property by the registered sale deed on 12.05.2009. It further arose when the defendants failed to tender rent to the plaintiffs, the cause of action further arose when the legal notice was served upon the defendants and who acknowledged the receipt thereof, but neither complied nor tendered the rent when it became due and the cause of action further arose when the mother of the plaintiff no.1 has issued the legal notice to the plaintiffs and it is still in continuation.” The learned counsel for the applicants has urged that the applicants have complied with the notice dated 18-7-2009 issued by the plaintiffs by depositing the arrears of rent in Regular Civil Suit No.220 of 2009. In view of this, the suit based upon non-compliance of the notice dated 18-7-2009 was required to be dismissed, as it does not make out any cause of action. Perusal of para 19 of the plaint, reproduced above, indicates that the respondents/plaintiffs have purchased the suit property on 12-5-2009 and by notice issued to the applicants/defendants, the applicants/defendants were called upon to pay the arrears of rent to the respondents/plaintiffs. The question whether the applicants have complied with the requirements of notice dated 18-7-2009 is required to be gone into. However, perusal of para 19 of the plaint, reproduced above, shows that the cause of action has been made out by the respondents/plaintiffs. The Trial Court has also observed that the suit for eviction is not only based on the ground of 3 non-compliance of payment of rent but also on the ground of personal use and occupation of the suit premises by the plaintiffs. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. In view of the above, there is no substance in this civil revision application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl