1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR W.P.NO.1766 OF 2010 Shri Hasan Ali Mohd.Ali ..vs.. Tulsiram S.Khokle Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2010. Heard Mr.V.G.Deshmukh Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Quazi, Advocate for the respondent. Advocate Deshmukh points out that the notice under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 calling upon the petitioner/tenant to clear arrears was issued after November, 2004 and the suit came to be filed in the first week of February 2005 i.e. before expiry of ninety days. It is contended that the suit as filed was for seeking possession on the ground that the petitioner has failed to clear arrears as required by Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was premature and his next contention that the adjacent premises had fallen vacant and same were let out by the respondent/landlord. The said tenant by name Mahadeo was examined by the petitioner and his evidence has not been considered by the courts below and hence there is failure of exercise the jurisdiction. Advocate Quazi, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord points out that the premises were 2 sought on account of bona fide need for son by name Hitesh of the present respondent. Mahadeo vacated the premises in 2002 and that time there was no need. He further states that the suit has not been decreed because of the violation of provisions of Section 15 of the Act by the present petitioner. I have perused papers. I find that the trial court has ordered eviction of the petitioner only because of bona fide need i.e. under clause 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. This court need not refer to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act in the present mater. The vacation of premises by Mahadeo is in the year 2002 and suit has been filed in the year 2005. If said vacation by Mahadeo or induction of other tenants in those premises by the petitioner had any bearing in present matter, the petitioner ought to have cross-examined landlord in that respect. There is no cross-examination of landlord about it. The courts further concurrently found that the bona fide need has been established. In these situation, it was not necessary for the respondent to examine son Hitesh in the matter. Therefore, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE chute