( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed against a decree of eviction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court against the defendant.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the controversy in question, few relevant facts may now be stated : the opponents are original plaintiffs, while the petitioner is original defendant. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 122 of 1978 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Navsari against the defendant for possession of the suit premises bearing Municipal Census no. 530/1 situated in Survey No. 26; City Survey Tika No. 14/1 in the town of Navsari. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was a monthly tenant of one room at the rate of Rs. 6. 00 per month. He was in arrears of rent from 1/02/1966. One Jimmy Rustomji Garda was the owner of the suit premises, who died on 11/10/1976. During his life time, he executed a will on 27/05/1976 and bequeathed the suit property to his four sisters and his wife was made the sole executor and the trustee under the will. A petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for Probate of the said will and the Probate was granted by the High Court of Bombay on 4/10/1982. The legatees appointed one mr. Laxmishanker Mapara as their constituted attorney with several powers including the power to sell the property. In exercise. of the said power, mr. Mapara sold the suit premises to the plaintiffs by a sale deed Exh. 4 4/12/1977. After the sale deed was executed, a notice of attornment was:; issued by the Power of Attorney as also by the present plaintiff-, to the defendant informing him that the plaintiffs had become owners of the property and calling upon him to accept the plaintiffs as owners and also asking him to pay arrears of rent. The defendant, however, failed to do so. He neither accepted the plaintiffs as landlords nor paid arrears of rent. On the contrary, he denied the title of the plaintiffs. Therefore, on both the grounds, namely, on the ground of denial of title of the landlords as also for non-payment of rent, the defendant was liable to be evicted.

( 3 ) THE defendant filed a written statement at Exh. 12, inter alia contending that the suit was false and frivolous. It was denied that the plaintiffs had become the owners of the suit property and they had right to file the suit against the defendant. It was contended that four sisters of deceased Jimmy rustomji Garda had no right in the suit property and, therefore, the sale purported to have been made on behalf of those ladies through their Power of Attorney Mr. Mapara was contrary to law. The so-called sale deed, Exh.-14 did not confer any right in favour of the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs had no interest in the suit premises they had no right to issue attornment notice nor to file a suit against the defendant. It was stated that The plaintiffs were called upon to supply. copies of relevant documents, such as sale deed, will and Power of Attorney to show how the plaintiffs had become owners of the suit property. Even a money order of Rs. 20. 00 was sent but the plaintiffs did not comply with the request. It was asserted that the defendant was always ready and willing to pay rent to the landlord, but since the plaintiffs had no authority to demand arrears of rent, the suit filed by them was not maintainable at law.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed necessary issues at Exh. 14. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Court held that it was proved by the plaintiffs that they had become owners of the: suit premises pursuant to the sale deed Exh. 44, executed by Mr. Mapara, Power of Attorney, of four sisters of deceased Jimmy rustomji Garda, who had become owners of the suit property under the will. The trial Court also held that notice of attornment issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant was legal, valid and in accordance with law and since the defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs,