1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 271 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 22, 2007. Heard Shri Paunikar, learned counsel for the petitioner – original defendant/ tenant. Shri Paunikar, learned counsel states that notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, terminating tenancy has not been served upon the petitioner at all. He further contends that all Trustees or Directors of Respondent – Public Trust / Society ought to have been joined as parties. He contends that all these aspects are lost sight of by the appellate authority. He invites attention to the judgment of the lower Court to point out admission of P.W.1 – Sushma to contend that said witness accepted that she was not in a position to state whether notice terminating tenancy has been served upon the petitioner or not. He also invited attention to consideration of later issues, in para 25 by the appellate Court, to contend that application of 2 mind by the appellate authority is perverse. He has also invited attention to pleas in written statement. It appears that the respondent – landlord has issued a notice at Exh. 19 terminating tenancy of the petitioner and thereafter he also forwarded another notice at Exh. 68. The appellate Court has found that the petitioner – tenant has nowhere specifically stated that he has not received Exh. 19. The perusal of written statement to which attention has been invited by Shri Paunikar, particularly para 3 reveals that the petitioner – tenant has accepted the fact of passing of order by Rent Controller and he has further accepted that after said order was passed, Respondent – landlord issued notice. However, he has stated that said notice is not in accordance with law and the same is premature. He has further proceeded to deny the date of receipt of notice and has further stated that the question of its compliance therefore did not arise. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to contend that these denials are in relation to notice at Exh. 68 by which the arrears of rent were demanded from the petitioner by the 3 respondent. He contends that said copy was also produced by the petitioner. However, bare perusal of pleading mentioned above is sufficient to hold that the plea is not in relation to notice demanding arrears of rent. The denial of date of receipt of notice and also the stand that notice is premature clearly shows that the reference is only to notice terminating tenancy. In any case, the appellate Court is right in concluding that the petitioner has not specifically denied the receipt of Exh. 19. The second argument is that all trustees of respondent ought to have filed the suit. Attention has been invited to cross examination of the plaintiff conducted by the petitioner – tenant. In said cross examination, it is admitted that the respondent is registered society and it has further been mentioned that there are seven members in its Executive Body. It is further mentioned by the witness that said Executive Committee has passed resolution to file suit against the petitioner and said witness Shri Sagdeo, Secretary of the respondent was authorized by the respondent to prosecute said suit. In view of this material, I find that the contention that all trustees or Executive 4 Committee members should have filed the suit together is without any merit. The appellate authority has considered this aspect in para 25 and has recorded that there was no such defence raised in written statement before the trial Court. Shri Paunikar contends that the petitioner got knowledge of status of respondent for the first time during the cross examination of the respondent. He also invited attention to appeal memo filed by the respondent before the lower Court in which it is mentioned that the respondent is Public Trust. I find that the discussion above is sufficient to meet the arguments of learned counsel. In these circumstances, no case is made out for interference. At this stage Shri Paunikar, learned counsel states that the order of Rent Controller granting permission to the respondent – landlord is challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority under clause 21 of C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order and said appeal is still pending. He contends that the respondent is likely to execute the decree for possession in view of the appellate order impugned in this writ petition. 5 I do not find any scope for such contingency because until and unless the respondent secured permission finally from the Rent Control authorities, he cannot execute decree for possession. Writ Petition is dismissed with these observations. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.