1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 149 OF 2009 Yusufkhan s/o. Habib Khan, R/o. Block No. 5 of House No. 5-28-119/P,1, situated at Standard Silk Mills Colony, Aurangabad. ....Applicant. Versus Ismail Khan s/o. Haji Abdul Rehman Khan, R/o. Standard Silk Mills, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ....Respondent. Mr. M.A. Latif, Advocate for applicant. Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 24th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. This civil revision application challenges the order dated 27.1.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Aurangabad, dismissing the Rent Appeal No. 8/2004 filed by the present applicant and confirming the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2003, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad in case No. 1991/ARC/15. The applicant is tenant and as per the decree passed by the trial Court, which has been maintained by the appellate Court, applicant/tenant is directed to vacant the suit premises i.e. Block No. 5 of House bearing Municipal No. 2 5-28-119/P-1, situated at Standard Silk Mill Colony, Aurangabad and to hand over its peaceful possession to the petitioner within a period of 30 days. The appellate Court granted two months time to the applicant/ tenant to vacant the premises from the date of the order which was passed on 27.1.2006. 2. The trial Court has recorded the finding that the applicant is the willful defaulter and the plaintiff has proved that the suit premises are required for his bona fide purpose. The appellate Court has, however, rejected the ground of bona fide requirement, but maintained the ground of willful defaulter. Thus, both these orders are under challenge in this civil revision application. 3. Shri. Latif, the learned counsel for the applicant, has urged that the applicant was suffering from paralytic attack and hence, he could not contact his counsel, as a result, the trial Court has delivered the judgment and decree without hearing the applicant. In appeal also this ground was raised, however, no particulars are mentioned. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks remand of the matter on this count to provide an opportunity to the applicant to defend the proceedings. 4. It is apparent that on earlier occasion also the appellate Court had remanded the matter back to the trial Court to decide it afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the applicant/tenant. 3 However, in spite of that the applicant remained absent. The trial Court has recorded the finding in this respect in para 2 of its judgment, which is reproduced below :- "This case was received in this court on 15.12.2000 and the parties were remain present on 18.12.1000 as directed by the District Court, Aurangabad. Thereafter, on 25.7.2001 the respondent and his advocate both were absent. The petitioner was present. Thereafter, again once chance was given to the respondent to produce his oral evidence . On 7.9.2001, the right of respondent to adduce his evidence was forfeited and the matter was posted for final argument on 14.9.2001. The advocate for the petitioner remain present on 5.10.2001, 17.10.2001, 31.10.2001 and also on 7.11.2001. On all these dates, the respondent and his advocate were remain absent. So, on 7.11.2001, the case was finally heard the advocate for petitioner argued the matter and hence, the case was fixed for final judgment and order. The earlier petition was decided by this court framing therein the following issues. i) Does the petitioner proves that the defendant is willful defaulter ? ii) Does the plaintiff proves that he requires the suit premises for his personal bonafide use ? iii) What order. In oral deposition of the petitioner it is deposed that there are two different small cause suits were filed before the Civil court, out of which one suit no. 42/90 was decreed by the civil court and thus it is held that the defendant is the willful defaulter and therefore this issue is answered in affirmative in favour of the petitioner. The second issue about personal bonafide is also answered in affirmative on the basis that the petitioner has deposed in his oral statement recorded on oath on 23.9.1994 wherein it is deposed that he requires the suit premises for his personal bonafide use. This point is never challenged by the respondent and hence this case is 4 fully decided by the then Additional Rent Controller in favour of petitioner. I have carefully gone through the entire proceedings of the case, documents filed by the parties concerned. It is revealed from the file that this matter was earlier decided by my predecessor and after remand as directed by the Hon'ble District Judge, the opportunities were given to both the parties. On pleadings of the matter the above referred issues were framed. In support of issue no. 1 about willful default on the part of the respondent. In this regard, the petitioner has filed a copy of decree in SCS no. 42/90, which shows that the respondent was willful defaulter in payment of rent, thereafter, I reply this issue in affirmative in favour of petitioner. As regards issue no. 2, the petitioner deposed on oath in his oral deposition recorded on 23.9.1994, therefore, I also reply this issue in affirmative all these issues have already been decided however, I do not interfere in the same. Considering the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the petitioner has fully proved his case and therefore, in my opinion, the petition of the petitioner is fit to be allowed." The aforesaid findings are confirmed in the appeal by the appellate Court. In view of the aforesaid findings on fact recorded by the Courts below, regarding failure of petitioner to participate in proceedings, I do not find any reason to interfere in the orders impugned in this civil revision application. This civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J.] ssc/cra149.09