1. The Petition raises a narrow but, in my view, important question of both civil procedure and rent control legislation. I have heard Mr Dani on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. The matter was assigned to this Court by a separate administrative direction. At first it was linked with a group of other matters but has now been segregated. I have also requested the presence of Mr SG Adake, the present Administrator General who exercises powers, performs duties and discharges functions under the Administrator General’s Act, 1963. The reason for this will became apparent shortly.

2. The issue at hand is this: there are cases in this city where a landlord does not know the names or addresses or both of the heirs of a deceased tenant. None come forward when the tenant dies. What is the process that a landlord should follow to recover his property? Is it at all permissible for the landlord to bring a formal eviction action in the names of, for instance, the heirs and legal representatives, if any of the late tenant? In our system of civil procedure, this seems to present procedural difficulties. In whose name would a Writ of Summons be issued? Where and how would it be served? What procedure should that Court of competent jurisdiction adopt? What safeguards are necessary to ensure that an unscrupulous landlord does not deliberately try and undermine or bypass legitimate statutory tenancy inheritance rights to the prejudice of the deceased tenant’s family?

3. I am not therefore addressing the merits of this particular writ petition. I propose to examine the question of maintainability, and to then remit the matter for a decision in accordance with law to the jurisdictionally competent court. As to the facts, it is sufficient only to note that the Petitioners are the trustees of a charitable fund and trust that holds considerable property, as many of old trusts in the city do. The Petitioners filed L.E. & C. Suit No.140/168 of 2012 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. The suit sought possession of Block No.A/1, Flat No.2, Petit Building, Avabai Petit Street, Grand Road, Mumbai 400 007, a residential block in a building admittedly owned by the Petitioners. The Trust inter alia provides residential accommodation to the poor and needy Parsis. This particular block was occupied by one Jal Minocher Unwala. He was the lone occupant of the premises. He died on 7th August 2011. The Petitioners as trustees were unaware of any heirs. The obituary in the newspapers disclosed no heirs or legal representatives against whom the Petitioners could have proceeded to recover the premises. Thus, when the Petitioners brought suit, they joined “the unknown heirs and legal representatives” of the deceased. It was their case that Jal Unwala was a licensee or a gratuitous licensee. I am, as I said, not concerned with the merits of this application. The suit itself was listed for a decision on the question of maintainability. On 15th February 2014, the Trial Court held that a suit against unknown heirs was maintainable provided that also joined to the Suit were another defendant or other defendants who were known and identified, albeit described as unlawful occupants. The Trial Court order is at Exhibit “D” from pages 35 to 52 of the Petition paper book. It seems to proceed on the basis that unless there is at least one known identifiable defendant, the suit is not maintainable. The end result was that the Trial Court rejected the plaint. The Petitioners appealed. The Appellate Bench considered this very question and ultimately framed a single point for determination i.e. whether the impugned order of 15th February 2014 was legal and proper and whether the Trial Court order called for interference. The Appellate Bench dismissed the appeal. Several authorities were cited before the Appellate Bench. It also noted the authorities that the Trial Court considered. The Court proceeded on the basis of the decision in Shrikant S Volvoikar v. Narendra Pandu Cha