Sau. Jyoti Raju Mohod vs Sahlini Manohar Pande
2023 Latest Caselaw 6317 Bom

                                                        1                                  907.WP.4068-2023.odt




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

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 4068 OF 2023
                                       ( Sau. Jyoti Raju Mohod
                                                  Vs.
                                       Sahlini Manohar Pande )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Ms. Seema Dhotre, Advocate for the Petitioner.




                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 4th JULY, 2023

Heard Ms. Dhotre, learned appointed counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petition challenges the judgment dated 02.01.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in a suit for eviction filed by the respondent, whereby a decree for eviction has been granted. A further finding has been rendered, that the present petitioner was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month from January 2011 till 30.06.2012 amounting to Rs.14,000/- for which, the decree has been passed. The appeal against this judgment and decree, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court by the judgment dated 30.11.2022 (page 13).

3. It is contended by Ms. Dhotre, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no relationship of

2 907.WP.4068-2023.odt

the landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent, and therefore, the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, were not attracted. That is the only ground which is raised.

4. A perusal of the written statement of the petitioner (para 13 page 39) indicates an admission on the part of the present petitioner regarding the relationship between the landlord and tenant and the increase of the rent which was earlier Rs.100/- per month to Rs.800/- per month which is stated to have been regularly paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Once this admission is there, it does not lie with the present petitioner to contend that there is no relationship. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the bonafide need has been established by the respondent which has resulted in the learned Trial Court passing the decree in that regard. It is also material to note, that the petitioner, has neither cross-examined the respondent nor led any evidence before the learned Trial Court, nor such an attempt, was sought to be made before the learned Appellate Court. That being the position, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgments.

5. The Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

6. Fees of the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner be paid as per rules.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte