1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5753/ 2010 (Vasant M Naidu (Dead) Through LRs vs. Smt. B Shakuntala Venkatrao and others ) 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 : 15 th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. The petitioner-tenant has challenged concurrent judgment and orders ordering his eviction on the ground of bona fide need. Advocate Wadodkar has raised two ground. The first one is that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller would operate as res judicata and here as proceedings before the Rent Controller were withdrawn without obtaining liberty to file fresh proceedings on same cause, case before Small Cause Court under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was not tenable. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the learned single Judge reported in 1990 Mh.L.J. Page 103 : Pragaji Gowardhan Waghela vs. Omprakash Mor). The second ground is plaintiff has failed to establish that there are six members residing in his family. Advocate Naidu has pointed out that application was filed before the Rent Controller seeking leave to withdraw with liberty on 9.2.2004 and this 2 grant of liberty was opposed by the present petitioner. On 8.10.2004 by order recorded in order-sheet, the Rent Controller has permitted withdrawal. He further submits that number of members in the family is proved by placing on record ration card (Exh.33) and even otherwise in the cross-examination conducted by petitioner that number is established. The respondent-landlord sought permission from Rent Controller to withdraw the Rent Control proceedings, with liberty. The Rent Controller's order permitting withdrawal on 8.10.2004 does not specifically mention that such a liberty is granted. Liberty was also opposed by the present petitioner. It is settled law that if liberty was not to be granted, the Rent Controller could not have permitted the respondent to withdraw the proceedings. I, therefore, do not find any merit in contention of Advocate Wadodkar that the withdrawal is without any liberty. Above ruling, therefore, has no application here. The petitioner has shown that all members in mentioned in ration card (Exh.33) are not residing with the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has established that his two unmarried brothers and plaintiff himself, his wife and two children are residing in existing accommodation. This material has come in cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff and it has been appreciated to conclude that occupation of said premises by six members is established. The finding is a finding of fact and concurrent. 3 I therefore, do not find any jurisdictional or perversity in the orders impugned. Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE sahare.