1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 491/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4961 OF 2011 (Dharamsingh Sarjusingh Mahant vs. Shyamrao Tulshiramji Tarale) 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 & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DECEMBER 07, 2011. Heard Shri Kaore, learned counsel for the appellant. The Small Cause Court, the appellate Court and the learned Single Judge have accepted the case of the respondent – landlord under Section 15 and Section 16(1)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Shri Kaore, learned counsel has raised two contention. First is, there was no notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy at the end of tenancy month. Second one is, only because 16 members in the family were disclosed, the bonafide need has been accepted. According to learned counsel, available rooms, their dimension and other details needed to be disclosed and proved. He contends that family of the respondent has got two houses. We find argument about requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, wholly misconceived and not supported by any legal 2 provision. Insofar as bonafide need is concerned, the learned Single Judge has found that there were 16 persons in the family residing in only four rooms. The learned Single Judge has accepted concurrent findings on fact reached by the Courts below. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the finding on bonafide need is either erroneous or perverse. There is no jurisdictional error. Letters Patent Appeal is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.