1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5397/2007 (Shri Mahavir s/o Dashrath Prajapati Vs. Smt. Laxmibai wd/o Kisan Thape, Nagpur) ...................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ...................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. C.F. Bhagwani, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N.G. Jetha, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 15th APRIL, 2011. This petition is preferred by the tenant/appellant, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-II, Nagpur on 26.09.2007 allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 419/2006 filed by the respondent/landlord and granting decree for possession of the suit property by maintaining the decree for arrears of rent passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had rejected the claim for possession and granted the claim for recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs.400/- per month along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the order till its realization. Shri Bhagwani, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that notice in question issued by the landlord on 08.06.2005 was not in compliance of the provisions of Section 15 (1)(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act r/w Section 106 of the Transfer of 2 Property Act. According to him, it was not the notice determining the tenancy of the petitioner tenant and it was a simpliciter notice demanding arrears of rent and such notice cannot be said to be in compliance with the aforesaid provisions. He further submits that in the notice arrears of rent @ Rs. 700/- per month which was not the standard rent and decree has been passed by the Trial Court for the rent @ Rs. 400/- per month. According to him notice was not claiming the rent @ Rs. 400/- per month hence on these two counts, the impugned orders need to be set aside. Shri Jetha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon two judgments of this Court: (1) Tarun Kumar Krishna Chandra Bhattacharaya Vs. Ganga wd/o Prabhudas Madnani & another reported in 2009(5) Mh.L.J. 544 and (2) Tarun Kumar Krishna Chandra Bhattacharaya Vs. Ganga wd/o Prabhudas Madnani reported in 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 404. He admits that the notice in question does not specifically state the determination of tenancy. But he submits that this Court has in the aforesaid two judgments considered the provisions of Section 15 (1) (2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 r/w 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and it has been held that what is contemplated under Section 15(2) of the said Act is the compliance of requirement of Section 106(4) of the Transfer of Property Act. He further submits that the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the notice was not legal and valid. The Appellate Court 3 has corrected this error and has passed the decree for possession. He further submits that even if in the notice the claim for rent @ Rs. 700/- per month, the Trial Court has determined the issue and has granted the rent @ Rs. 400/- per month and the petitioner being found in arrears, the decree has been passed. After going through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, it seems that the matter is no more res integra. This Court has taken a view on harmonious construction of the provisions of Section 15(1)(2) of the said Act r/w 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, that what is contemplated by Section (2) of Section 15 of the Rent Control Act, is the service of notice in the mode and manner prescribed under Sub Section (4) of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and it is only demand for standard rent and imposition of penalty for which the notice is required to be issued. In view of this, the Trial Court has committed an error of law in holding that the notice was not legal and valid. The Appellate Court has corrected the said mistake and hence no fault can be found with the view taken by the Appellate Court. So far as the question of quantum of rent is concerned even if the rent @ Rs. 700/- was claimed the courts below have recorded the finding that it was @ Rs. 400/- per month and the petitioner had committed default in making the payment of the rent. The notice in question intimates the petitioner that he was in 4 arrears of rent. The courts below have determined that the petitioner was defaulter and was in arrears of rent and hence no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the courts below. In the result there is no substance in the petition and the same is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE NSN