1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.225/2008 In Writ Petition No.4071/1999 (Decided) [M/s. Laxmin Glass Stores and others .vrs. Mst. Saburibee wd/o Haji Saddaruddin Tigala and others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. M.D. Samel, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Nitin Vyawahare, Advocate for the respondents. .......... Coram : A.P. Lavande and P.D. Kode, JJ. Dated : 18 th February, 2009. 1. Heard Mr. Samel, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Vyawahare, Advocate for the respondents. 2. By this appeal the appellants takes exception to judgment and order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.407/1999 by which the petition filed by the appellant against the orders of Rent Controller has been dismissed although learned Single Judge has set aside the 2 order passed by the learned Single Judge granting permission to the respondent/landlord to give quit notice for sub-letting under The C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The learned Single Judge has upheld the order passed by both the courts below granting permission to respondents to terminate the tenancy under clause 13(3)(ii) of Rent Control Order, 1949. All the authorities below as well as learned Single Judge have concurrently held that the respondents have been able to prove the habitual default on the part of the appellant. 3. Mr. Samel, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the appellants had given hand loan of Rs.2,000/- to Rustamali, the son of the landlady Saburibee on 2.8.1991. This fact has been even admitted by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the amount due for the period June 1991 to July 1992 comes to Rs.1050/- and, therefore, the appellants had paid more amount than what was actually due. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. Vyawahare, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the point which bas been argued by 3 Mr. Samel have not argued before the learned Single Judge. In any case the learned counsel submitted that the amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid to Rustamali, the son of landlady in his individual capacity and as such the same could not have been adjusted towards rent due to the landlady Saburibee. He, therefore, submitted that no case has been made out for interference by this court since there are finding of fact recorded by the authorities under Rent Control Order as well as by the learned Single Judge against the appellants. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for any interference by this court. The finding regarding habitual default recorded by Rent controller which has been maintained by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be perverse having regard to the factual situation. The amount of Rs.2000/- was admittedly paid to Rustamali, the son of landlady Suburibee. There is absolutely nothing on record to establish that the said amount was paid at the instance of the landlady to Rustamali so as to absolve the appellants from payment of rent for the period from June 1991 to July 1992. This point was also not agitated before the learned Single Judge. 4 We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande