( 1 ) THE instant writ petition is filed by the original plaintiffs challenging the judgment and order dated 26th September, 1989 passed by the learned III Addl. District Judge, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 341/1983, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 25th February, 1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge J. D. , Bhusawal, in Regular Civil Suit No. 377/1980 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of Municipal house No. 2/28 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit house") which is in the occupation of the defendant as a tenant. The parties to this judgment will be referred to as the "plaintiffs" and "defendant". Most of the facts and findings arrived at are not disputed, which can be noted to understand the controversy raised in this petition.

( 2 ) ONE Ramdularibai Badrilal Chaurasiya owned the suit house and the defendant was occupying the same as a tenant. As the defendant remained in arrears of rent from 6th July, 1978 till 22nd August, 1980, the plaintiff No. 1 issued notice to the defendant as required by section 12 sub-section (2) of the bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), calling upon the defendant to pay the arrears of rent as demanded. The notice admittedly was received by the defendant on 27th August, 1980. It is also not disputed that on receipt of the notice from the plaintiff, the defendant did not comply the notice nor paid the arrears of rent under section 12 (3) (a) of the Act. As the defendant did not pay the rent nor vacated the premises, plaintiff No. 1 filed RCS No. 377/1980 on 10th October, 1980, inter alia, contending that the defendant is occupying one block in the suit house as a monthly tenant and the rent of the said premises being Rs. 8/- per month. She contended that there is no dispute regarding standard rent etc. The tenancy begins on 7th of every month. She has accepted that the defendant has paid the rent upto 6th July, 1978, but the defendant was in arrears for more than six months, hence she issued notice under section 12 (2) of the Act on 22nd August, 1980 calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent within one month and also to hand over the vacant possession of the house. She claimed in the suit the possession of the said block and also the amount the arrears of rent of Rs. 282. 60/- paise and further rent during the pendency of the suit.

( 3 ) AFTER filing the suit, the plaintiff No. 1 sold the suit house to Prabhakar tukaram Nemade and Balkrishna Tukaram Nemade under registered sale dated 13-1-1981. After the suit house was sold to them, the purchasers filed an application at Exh. 10, with a prayer to add them as plaintiffs. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 11th August, 1981 allowed the application, thereby permitted the purchasers to be added as plaintiffs in the said suit, since they are added as plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and suit proceeded as such.

( 4 ) ON lodging of the plaint, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, ordered summons to be issued to the defendant. On receipt of summons, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement on 11th December, 1981, denying all adverse contentions raised by the plaintiffs. He denied that he was in arrears of rent, as alleged by the plaintiffs. He also denied that he has received the notice. He also contended that the amount of rent as claimed in the plaint and the notice not acceptable to him. In para 6 of the Written Statement, the defendant accepted the fact that the owner of the house-Ramdularibai, by a registered sale deed dated 13-1-1981, has sold the property to the added plaintiff nos. 2 and 3. He accepted that the original plaintiff has attorned the tenancy in favour of the purchasers. He also accepted the fact of delivery of symbolic possession of the suit house to the purchasers on 15-1-1981 and accepted that notice of attornment. He contended that added plaintiffs have paid the arrears of re