1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.176 OF 2010 Shri Parshuram C. Kanojiya ...Applicant. v. Shri Manohar V. Kuntha ...Respondent. Mr. Rajesh Kachare a/w Tushar V. Dahibawkar i/by Dahibawkar & Co., advs. For the Applicant. Mr. S.R.Ganbavale, adv. For the Respondent. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 5, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Suit was filed by the landlord against the defendant, who is present revision applicant, for eviction and possession on the ground of bona fide requirements. Suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, holding that the father of the defendant was actually the tenant and as he is still alive, the suit against the defendant could not have been filed. Plaintiff preferred Appeal No.748/08. That appeal was allowed and the decree for eviction and possession was passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. In the present revision, the learned counsel for the defendant/revision applicant points out that in the 2 written statement, it was stated that the necessary parties are not impleaded in the suit. In fact, in the written statement, no specific plea was taken that his father was tenant and he is still alive. It appears that in the affidavit in examination-in-chief , he specifically stated that his father was tenant and he is still alive and, therefore, suit could not be filed against him. Even the witness of the plaintiff admitted in the cross- examination that as per the rent receipt , father of the defendant was tenant but the suit was filed against the defendant because according to her information, father of the defendant had died. She also further stated that suit was filed against the defendant because he is in actual possession. It may be noted that father of the defendant was never examined as witness but taking into consideration the admission that the father of the defendant was tenant and claim of the defendant that his father is still alive though he is not living in the premises because most of the times, he lives in his native place at U.P., notice of the termination of the tenancy should have been issued and served upon the tenant and the suit for eviction and possession could be filed only against the tenant and not against his son. In view of this, decree for eviction could not be passed against the defendant. 3 In view of this, revision application is allowed and the 3 impugned judgment and decree in the appeal are hereby set aside. However, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to take appropriate action as per law against the tenant. 4 It is made hereby clear that in case later on it is revealed that father of the defendant was not infact alive and he has made false statement, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to move this Court to recall this order and in that case, revision application would be liable to be dismissed. Revision Applicant shall give to the respondent/landlord complete address of his father at the native place where he is actually residing. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)