( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 81 OF 2007 Smt. Saraswatibai Onkardas Agrawal .. Applicants since deceased through L.Rs. And Anr. Versus Pyarelal Gulabchand Agrawal .. Respondents since deceased through his L.Rs. And Anr. Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Pushkar Shendurnikar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 18.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by original land-lord. His suit for eviction bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 401 of 1988 was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal on 25.04.2002, which judgment and decree is further confirmed in Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2002 by the learned Principal District Judge, Jalgaon by his judgment dated 19.10.2006. ( 2 ) 2. The suit was filed for eviction mainly on the ground that there was default in the payment of rent. There was change of user from residential to commercial purpose by the tenant & acts of damage and destruction was committed. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove the said grounds for eviction. So far as the amount of default is concerned, the copy of notice under Section 12 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Bombay Rent Act”) is produced on record at Exh. "F" along with the appeal memo. From reading said notice dated 12.09.1988 it does not appear that the land-lord has stated the period for which the rent was outstanding and how much rent was demanded. Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act is clear. The rent must be in arrears for more than six months and there should be demand for the same. Thus, no notice is given as required under Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act and therefore there can be eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. 3. So far as change of user and destruction is concerned, the learned advocate for the respondent has drawn ( 3 ) my attention to paras 14 and 15 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court. It is alleged that the change of user was from residential to commercial purposes. Laxminarayan - the son of original land-lord is examined on oath and he stated that the suit premises were let out for residential purposes. Now they are used for storing of coal, firewood, raw-material of the sweetmeat etc. It is stated in para 15 of the judgment that, Laxminarayan admitted in cross-examination that the agreement of lease was entered into between his father and respondents 40-45 years ago and he was not aware of the terms and conditions of the user of the premises. However, he further admitted that from last 40-45 years the respondents and their predecessors have been using the premises for the business of sweetmeat maker. Thus, it is clear that the premises were used for business purpose. It appears that respondents were using the suit premises for preparing food articles. The respondents have also produced original licence issued under Shop Act at Exh. 83 and electricity bill to show that the electricity supply is taken for commercial purpose. 4. After having given anxious consideration to the ( 4 ) arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and after considering the reasons given by the learned First Appellate Court, in my considered opinion both the Courts have not committed any error in appreciation of facts. There is no error of law. In the facts and circumstances, this Civil Revision application has no merits. This Civil Revision Application is dismissed at the stage of admission. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cra81.07