IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8245 OF 2008 New Basweshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Solapur through its turstee ...Petitioners V/s. Guruling Raosaheb Gangadhar Belure & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Ajay A.Joshi for Petitioners. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.J.V.Kanade for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 20, 2009. JANUARY 20, 2009. JANUARY 20, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In my opinion, on the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court on the issue of ground of default, no other view was possible. The inevitable order was to decree the Suit on the ground of default. The Appeal Court has rightly confirmed the decree on confirming the finding of fact so recorded by the Trial Court. : 2 : 3. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioners would argue that the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court is error apparent on the face of the record. According to him, the Petitioners had produced evidence to suggest that taxes in the present case would form part of the rent for which the Petitioners were not liable to pay any additional amount. No such argument was canvassed before the lower Court. Whereas, the Trial Court has clearly recorded in Paragraph 12 of the impugned Judgment that there was considerable rise in municipal taxes as well as water taxes, for which, the Respondents/landlords were required to issue notice (Exhibit 64) calling upon the Petitioners to pay the increased taxes, which the Petitioners failed to pay. The Court below has also found that the Petitioners have failed to file application for fixation of permitted increases or deposit the increased taxes as well as water charges in Court. On that finding, as aforesaid, the inevitable conclusion was to decree the Suit against the Petitioners on the ground of default. Hence, this Petition fails. The same is dismissed. : 3 : 4. In view of the above, it is not necessary for me to address the ground of bonafide requirement although the concurrent opinion of the two Courts below on the said ground is against the Petitioners. 5. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioners submits that since the Petitioners are running a school and would affect about 200 students who are studying in the School, some reasonable time to vacate be granted. Request is made to grant time at least for a period of one year, so that, the School can make some other arrangement for the next academic year. Although this prayer is opposed by the Counsel for the Respondents, in the fact situation of the present case, time as requested is granted till end of May 2010 on Petitioners filing usual undertaking in this Court and deposit all the arrears of rent and permitted increases within two weeks from today. : 4 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.