: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.377 OF 2007 Sakinabi Hasan Choudhary, Decd., Thru’ Hazi A. Rashid H. Choudhary and Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Allaudin Haji Abu Bagwan .. Respondent Mr. G.M. Savagave for the Applicants. Mr. I.M. Khairdi for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 28 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been filed against the decree for eviction passed on 23rd April, 2004, by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi, Solapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.634 of 1989, which has been confirmed by the District & Sessions Court, Solapur in Regular Civil Appeal No.115 of 2004. 2. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the applicants is that a standard rent application was pending before the trial Court and it had been filed immediately after the notice of demand was issued to the tenants; therefore, no eviction decree could have been passed. : 2 : 3. This submission, though attractive at first blush, is not tenable. The notice of demand for arrears of rent was issued on 27th June, 1989. That notice was replied on 17th July, 1989, by the tenants. The standard rent application was filed on 14th December, 1989. Therefore, obviously the standard rent application has not been filed within the period stipulated under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The submission of the learned Advocate is that a second notice was issued on 20th November, 1989 demanding rent. He submits that the standard rent application has been filed within one month from that period. Admittedly, the tenancy was terminated on 31st July, 1989. The notices which have been produced indicate that the demand was made on 27th June, 1989. In the reply the tenants have merely stated that they are not liable to pay the rent, as demanded, since they were not in arrears of rent. It is true that the second notice need not have been issued. However issuance of the second notice cannot lead to the conclusion that : 3 : the plaintiffs had waived their rights under the first notice. In fact the reply of the applicants is a mere denial of the contentions in the notice. There is no whisper in this reply about the excess rent sought by the respondent. The second notice is a mere reiteration of the earlier notice. Hence the submission of the learned Advocate for the applicants is unsustainable. 4. As regards the bonafide requirement of the landlord, the Appellate Court has considered the need of the landlord for the suit premises and has held that the trial Court’s finding on this issue is correct. The Appellate Court has, therefore, concurred with the finding of the trial Court on this issue. 5. The Appellate Court has also held that the applicants had acquired suitable alternate accommodation and that the suit premises were closed continuously for six months. : 4 : 6. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the Appellate Court while decreeing the Suit. The Appellate Court has considered the fact that the standard rent application was not filed within the stipulated time i.e. one month from the demand. The reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tarabai Shivlal Pardeshi v/s. Murlidhar Paraji Devde, reported in 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 858, is misplaced, since in the present case the application was filed belatedly. 7. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. .......