CRA 120/2010 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 120/2010 RAJENDRA S/O KACHRULAL SHARMA VS. RAJJANLAL RAVISHANKAR PARDESHI _____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________ Mr. R.R. Sancheti, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.P. Wani h/f Mr. A.G. Magare, Advocate for respondent sole. CORM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 1st March, 2011 1 Heard. 2 This civil revision application is challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the respondent / landlord has validly terminated the tenancy of applicant in respect of a shop. The shop premises is situated at village Khandbara Tq. Navapur Dist. Dhule. The Courts below concurrently held that 15 days' clear notice of termination of tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was validly served on the applicants. The only objection that seems to have been raised by the applicant / defendant CRA 120/2010 2 was that the respondent / plaintiff had no title to the suit property and could not have filed the suit as landlord but the Courts below clearly held that the respondent / plaintiff had ample authority as owner of the property to terminate his tenancy and then to sue him. The Courts below held that the suit was not bad for non joinder of other owners. The Courts below accepted the case of the respondent / plaintiff that in the family partition, he received this property and thus became owner of the same. The Courts below also accepted the case of the respondent / plaintiff that since he became owner of the suit shop, he asserted his right as landlord by demanding and accepting the rent from the applicant. The applicant / defendant did not deny this fact but in fact, admitted that he had sent money orders for effecting payment of rent to the respondent / plaintiff. In view of this, there is no reason why revision should be admitted. Revision application stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] ts k/