Babarao S/O. Wasudeo Hiware vs Mohanlal S/O. Maluramji Agrawal
2016 Latest Caselaw 3579 Bom

                                                                                        wp4140.15
                                                   1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                        
                                 NAGPUR.




                                                                
                      WRIT    PETITION     NO.   4140     OF     2015




                                                               
    Babarao Wasudeo Hiware,
    aged 67 yrs. Occu.Retired,
    R/o Arvi Tah. Arvi,
    Distt. Wardha.                                                           PETITIONER.




                                                
                               ig               VERSUS


    Mohanlal Maluramji Agrawal,
                             
    aged 66 yrs. Occu. Business,
    R/o Arvi, Distt.Wardha.                                                  RESPONDENT.

Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri S. K. Bhoyar, Advocate for the respondent.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               





                                      Dated    :   JULY  04, 2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

In view of notice for final disposal the learned counsel for the

parties have been heard at length.

2] The petitioner is the tenant of the premises owned by the

respondent. The respondent filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner on

the ground that he was in arrears of rent and that the premises were

required for bonafide occupation. The trial Court decreed the suit on

wp4140.15

both counts. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, it was held that

the tenant was in arrears of rent. However the finding as regards

bonafide need was held against the landlord.

3] Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the respondent had issued a notice dated 28.10.2002

under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control

Act, 1999. In the said notice however the landlord did not grant time of

90 days to pay the arrears of rent. It is submitted that failure to grant

period of 90 days resulted in prejudice to the benefit and rendered the

notice invalid. As the suit was filed on the basis of this notice eviction

on the ground of arrears of rent could not have been directed.

4] Shri S. K. Bhoyar, the learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned judgment. According to him though the suit

was based on notice dated 28.10.2002, the suit was filed after a period

of 90 days and therefore the tenant had sufficient time to pay the arrears

of rent. He, therefore, submitted that the decree was rightly passed in

favour of the landlord.

5] Having heard the respective counsel I do not find that any

error was committed by both the Courts in granting the decree on the

ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent. The service of the

notice dated 28.10.2002 is not in dispute. Similarly the suit has been

filed after a period of 90 days from the service of notice. It is therefore

clear that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner on the count

wp4140.15

that the period of 90 days for paying arrears of rent was not mentioned

in the demand notice. In view of aforesaid there is no case made out to

interfere in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands dismissed with no

order as to costs. However the petitioner is granted time till the end of

October 2016 to vacate the suit premises.

JUDGE

svk