1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4865 OF 2003 1. Kachru Jaywant Salve } ( Dead through Lrs. } 1-A. Smt. Shakuntala Kacharu Salve } Age : 55 Years, Occ. : Household, } R/o : H. No. 1639, Maliwada, } Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. } 1-B. Smt. Sangita Kundlik Arwade } Age : 55 Years, Occ. : Household, } R/o : H. No. 1639, Maliwada, } Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. } 1-C. Sow. Seema Sanjay Kokane } Age : 35 years, Occ. Household, } R/o : Shubham Electronics, } Near Mauli Stall, Main Road } Bajar Peth, Sangamner, Taluka } Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. } 1-D. Sow. Lalita Sudhakar Devadiga } Age : 32 years, Occ. Service, } R/o Flat No.6, Devi Mangal, C-6 } Behind Sai Palace Hotel, } Chetna Nagar, Nashik - 09. } 1-E. Ku. Sujata Kacharu Salve } Age : 25 years, Occ. Education } R/o : as per Applicant No.1A. } ..PETITIONERS V E R S U S 2 1. Sunil Ganpat Ghodekar } Age : 43 years, Occ. Service } 2. Vitthal Ganpat Ghodekar, } Age : 58 Years, Occ. Service } 3. Pama Ganpat Ghodekar, } Age : 46 Years, Occ. Household } 4. Usha Ganpat Ghodekar } Age : 51 Years, Occ. Household } 5. Sulochana Vishwanath Kshirsagar } Age : 48 years, Occ. Household } 6. Sumati Kisan Gadekar, } Age : 44 years, Occ. Household } Nos.1 to 5, R/o Maliwada, Taluka } Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. } No.6 R/o Ghargaon, Tq. Sangamner } District Ahmednagar. } .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.K.Shinde and Shri D.P.Pokharkar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondents. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 07/10/2009. JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 29/3/2003 passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge, 3 Sangamner in R.C.A. No. 184 of 2000 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 5/3/1992 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Sangamner in R.C.S. NO. 280 of 1985. 2. The back-ground facts of the case are as under. The petitioners herein are the original respondents. The respondent no. 1 herein filed R.C.S. No. 280 of 1985 against the petitioner for possession of suit premises and arrears of rent under Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The specific case of the plaintiffs/respondents that petitioner failed to pay rent of the suit premises to plaintiff for more than six months and, therefore, he became willful defaulter as per the provisions of Bombay Rent Act and also plaintiff prayed that he is in bonafide need of suit premises for his personal accommodation. Notice was issued by the plaintiff to the petitioner, who was original defendant. On 6/1/1986, the petitioner filed his Written Statement in pursuance to the summons, denied all allegations. 3. On 5/3/1992, the trial Court after recording evidence and hearing parties, held that the petitioner has became the willful defaulter as he failed to pay rent of the suit premises to the plaintiff for more than six months and petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises and further directed to pay arrears of rent. 4 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, preferred Regular Civil Appeal before the District Court, Ahmednagar. The plaintiff filed Cross Objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the findings of the lower court below Issue No. 9 , “ Does plaintiff proves that suit premises required by him reasonably and bonafide for use and occupation ? ”. On 22/9/2003, the appellate Court held that the plaintiff proved that the defendant is in arrears of rent from 7/4/1984 to 6/6/1985 and has became defaulter. Hence, this Writ Petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to each and every ground taken in the Writ Petition and submitted that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the contention of the petitioner and have come to the wrong conclusion. According to the learned counsel, the amended provisions of Bombay Rent Act (Act, 1887) as amended from 1/10/1987 will give relief to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to get relief under said provisions and a Decree for possession can not be passed in such circumstances as the petitioner deposited all arrears of rent in Appeal. Therefore, learned counsel relying upon the pleadings in the petition, annexures thereto, Written Statement filed, submitted that this Writ Petition may be allowed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, invited 5 my attention to the findings recorded by the Courts below and submitted that those findings are reached after appreciation of the facts in the case and, therefore, no interference is warranted under writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submitted that the amended provisions of Rent Act in 1987 could not have been made applicable in the instant case since the Suit is filed prior to that. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties at great length, perused the impugned Judgments and Orders of Court below. On perusal of the Judgments, it is abundantly clear that the Courts have properly framed the Issues and have arrived to the conclusion that the petitioner is defaulter for paying the rent. There are concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the court below and to that extent, there is no question of interference by this Court since those findings are not perversed. So far contention of the petitioner about application of amended provisions to the Rent Act in 1987 is concerned, those can not be made applicable in case of the present petitioner , since Suit was filed prior to that. Since both the courts have elaborately dealt with pleadings and arguments advanced by the parties, it is not necessary to repeat the same. The Courts below have taken a possible view after properly interpreting relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, 6 1947. Therefore, in my considered view, no interference is warranted under extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Rule stands discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Civil Application No. 3984 of 2006 stands disposed in view of the dismissal of the main Writ Petition. [ S.S.SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP4865.03