Bainabai Atmaram Nagdive And Anor vs Sunil Laxmanrao Jambhulkar
2016 Latest Caselaw 6234 Bom

                                                      1              wp3102.08.odt

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                     
                                                             
                              WRIT PETITION NO.  3102 OF 2008


     1]         Smt. Bainabai Wd/o Atmaram




                                                            
                Nagdive, aged about 60 years,
                Occ. Nil.

     2]         Devidas s/o. Atmaram Nagdive,




                                              
                Aged about 31 yeas, Occ. Nil.
                             
                Both R/o. Patipura, Yavatmal,
                Tahsil and Distt. Yavatmal                                     PETITIONERS
                            
                                      ...VERSUS...

                Sunil s/o Laxmanrao Jambhulkar,
                aged about 35 years, Occ. Not Known,
      

                R/o. Quarter No. L/35, Vidarbha Housing
                Society, Bajoria Nagar, Yavatmal,
   



                Tah. And Distt. Yavatmal.......                                   RESPONDENT

     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Shri V.D.Dhobe, counsel for Petitioner.





     Shri A.V.Bhide, counsel for Respondent
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.

th DATE : 20 OCTOBER, 2016 .

ORAL JUDGMENT

1] Both the Courts below are concurrent in holding

that the petitioners-defendants were defaulter in making

payment of rent and that the landlord requires the suit

2 wp3102.08.odt

premises for his bonafide use of residence.

2] With the assistance of the learned counsels

appearing for the parties, I have gone through the judgment

and orders delivered by both the Courts below. On the

aspect of arrears of rent, an amount of Rs.648/- was claimed

for the period from 01.11.1999 to 30.10.2002. The petitioners

received the suit summon on 15.03.2003 and the amount of

arrears of rent was deposited on 11.08.2003 i.e. after the

period of 90 days.

3] The question raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that, the notice for eviction was not served

upon both the defendants, who were the tenants in

succession of the tenancy of the father Atmaram. So far as

bonafide requirement is concerned, it is urged that the

plaintiff-landlord was residing in the house owned by the

mother and hence, the requirement is not established.

4] The undisputed factual position is that, the

amount of arrears of rent was deposited beyond the period of

90 days as stipulated under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra

3 wp3102.08.odt

Rent Control Act. The petitioners are held to be the

defaulters. Undisputedly, both the them were residing in the

same house and the service of notice upon one of the

petitioners has been established by producing an

acknowledgment.

5] So far as the bonafide requirement is concerned,

the suit premises consist of only one room, which is owned

by the respondent-plaintiff. Undisputedly, the respondent-

plaintiff was residing in the house owned by his mother and

wanted separate room for his own living after marriage. Two

witnesses are examined by the respondent-plaintiff who have

deposed the bonafide requirement. Both the Courts below

have recorded the concurrent finding that the bonafide

requirement has been proved.

In view of above, no interference is called for.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.

JUDGE

Rvjalit