1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4945/2008 Shakuntala wd/o Y. Ambade Vs. Bhagirathibai wd/o Mahadevrao Kochey and others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 17th July, 2009. Heard Mr. Wahane, learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is filed against two concurrent findings recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court as well as District Judge whereby the suit of eviction against the petitioner has been decreed. The suit came to be filed under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“the Act” for short) with an allegation that the defendant was in arrears of rent and has not paid the rent in spite of service of notice under Section 15 of the Act. The said suit was contested by the 2 petitioner-defendant. The main contention, that was raised by the petitioner/ defendant was that the rent, in fact, has been paid by the defendant and that too in presence of two witnesses, who were examined in the case. The Court had considered their evidence and had found that the rent was not actually paid. It was not paid even after the plaintiffs had called upon the defendant to pay the rent. I have heard Mr. Wahane, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Wahane submits that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence of two witnesses of the defendant who say that the amount of rent has been paid. I am taken through the judgment of the Courts below. It appears that prior to filing of this suit, there was distress warrant proceedings between the parties and, therefore, the relations between the parties were not of confidence. The Courts below have found that in such circumstances it is difficult to accept the oral evidence of the two witnesses and particularly when the relations were strained and it is also difficult to believe that the rent was paid 3 without obtaining receipt. I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below and the appreciation of the evidence of the two witnesses in the matter. In view of above, I find no substance in the petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. At this stage, Mr. Wahane submits that since rainy season is going on, the Court may grant time of six months to vacate the premises. The petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises till 30.11.2009 on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards arrears of rent within a period of one month and furnish usual undertaking. Thereafter the petitioner shall obtain order from this Court for remaining amount. Judge. Ambulkar