( 1 ) THE petitioner tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the reversal order passed by the additional District Judge, Nashik, (Appellate Court), whereby the respondent-landlord's appeal has been allowed and the order of dismissal of the suit was set aside, resultantly, the respondent-landlord's suit has been decreed, basically on the ground of default. Therefore, the present writ petition.

( 2 ) THE tenant and landlord's relationship was the basic cause of action for filing the suit for eviction, after issuing demand notice, as contemplated under the bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short bombay Rent Act ). There is no dispute in the present case, that the demand notice was issued and received by the petitioner-tenant. There was no dispute raised immediately within 30 days and or no application of any kind was filed within the said period. That resulted into filing of suit before the learned Civil judge, S. D. , Nashik (trial Court ). The parties led evidence, after resisting the said suit. The learned Judge by order dated 28-4-1992, dismissed the suit. It is the appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and order, granted the decree for possession by reversing the finding. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

( 3 ) SINCE 1962-63 the petitioner along with his other brothers residing in the suit premises, claiming to be the joint Hindu Family, as tenants. The receipts, in fact, as pointed out by the Counsel appearing for the respondents, during all this period were in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has been recognised, as tenant of the premises in question. The said monthly tenancy at the rate Rs. 30/- remained undisturbed, unchallenged even after the issuance of demand notice in question. No objection of any kind has been raised by any other brothers, who said to be the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family in question.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, strongly relied on the admissions given in the evidence that "ramnath is the Karta, therefore, the receipts stands in his name". The whole submission therefore, is that the Ramnath has been recognised as a tenant. Therefore, issuance of notice only to Ramesh by the respondent landlord goes to the root of the matter and therefore, on this ground also the decree, as such unexecutable. The submission therefore, that basically all the brothers who are occupying the premises in question should have been joined as a party. As noted above, in view of the above undisputed position on the record, I am not inclined to accept the submission, as raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

( 5 ) THERE is nothing to suggest or borne out from the record that the tenancy was joint tenancy. At no point of time, the landlord has recognized all the occupants, that is the brothers of the petitioner, as a joint tenant of the premises in question. In absence of this background it is difficult to accept the contention as raised above.

( 6 ) THE trial Court was swayed away with the evidence on the record that after receipt of the notice, the wife of the respondent had tried to tender the rent, which was refused. Therefore, the tenant never neglected to pay the rent. There was always intention to deposit the rent. There is no dispute that the wife of petitioner-Ramesh, tried to tender the rent but the same was refused and therefore, the trial Court accepted and held the same as compliance of the bombay Rent Act and refused to grant the decree for possession.

( 7 ) THE Appellate Court however, reversed the same by observing as : "the notice was received by the defendant on 18-4-1985. The plaint was presented on 10-12-1985. On 19-9-1986, summons was served upon the defendant. On 22-10-1986, defendant appeared in the Court. Then few adjournments were sought to file written statement. Onl7-7-1987, written statement was filed. On 16-6-1987 (E