1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4405/2007 Dattu Mulchand Turke ..vs.. Nemlal Chintamanrao Pinjarkar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 27 th March, 2008 1. Heard Ms. Rane, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Athar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is the tenant's petition under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The trial Court passed decree of eviction under Section 15 (1) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which is confirmed by the lower appellate Court. There is no dispute that the respondent/landlord gave notice to the petitioner/tenant demanding arrears of rent for the period from 01.01.1999 to 31.03.2005 i.e. for the period of 75 months. In spite of this notice, the petitioner did not pay or deposit the amount of rent as claimed. Previously also, the respondent/landlord required to file suit, bearing 2 Regular Civil Suit No.286/1994 against the petitioner claiming arrears of rent. This suit was decreed in favour of the respondent however the petitioner did not comply with the decree. The respondent required to file the present suit on the ground of default for the subsequent period. 3. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the respondent is entitled to decree of eviction on the ground of default. No error or perversity is pointed out so as to enable me to interfere in the impugned judgment and order in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. Ms. Rane, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant at this stage prays for time of one year to vacate the suit premises. Mr. Athar, learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord opposes this request and submits that at the most three months time may be granted. 5. The petitioner is in possession of the suit premises 3 since the year 1973. Taking into consideration peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be granted six months time to vacate the suit premises subject to filing usual undertaking within a period of two weeks from today. JUDGE kahale