1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1372 of 2008 [P.D. Patwardhan Vs. RDC & orsd..] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 07th April,2008. 1. Heard. 2. Landlord sought eviction on various grounds, inter alia, the ground of Clause 13 [3} [ii] of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order,1949, was agitated. The averment in this regard is made in paragraph no.3 of the application, which reads as follows:- “3. That, the N.A. has not paid the rent of the tenanted premises to the applicant no.2 for the period from 1.1.1992 till 31.8,1992 and also for the period from 1.2.1994 till 28.2.1997. Thus the N.A. is in arrears of rent for the total period of 45 months, amounting to Rs.18,000/- @ Rs.400/- per month. The N.A. has not paid the above amount of arrears of rent in spite of several demands from the 2 applicant No.2 and also in spite of the several letters and notices served by the applicant No.2 on the N.A. making the demand of the arrears of rent. ....” 3. This aspect of the matter has been replied in paragraph 3 of the written Statement which reads as follows:- “3. ..... Actually, as per the oral talk of the applicant, the non- applicant repaired the tenanted premises on the cost of the applicant and he should liable to pay the same to the non-applicant. That the non-applicant already filed counter claim before the Civil Judge [J.D.] Akola. That the applicant no.2 also filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent. When the matter is pending before competent court for adjudication, then the contention and the pleading before this Court is not tenable. ....” 4. After eviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal and raised the ground of denial of opportunity. 5. The Appellate Authority remanded the case. 6. The tenant did not produce any evidence, including that he declined to step into witness box. 7. The Rent Controller again granted permission. 3 8. The Appellate Authority, based on the record, recorded a finding against the tenant in paragraph 5 of the Judgment, which reads as follows:- “5. In respect of Clause 13 (3) (ii), I have to observe that the tenancy is monthly and the monthly tenant is under obligation to pay the rent every month. The Respdt. has also issued notices to the appellant regarding payment of rent. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, I am satisfied that the appellant has formed a habit to remain in arrears of rent continuously and remain in arrears of rent for a long period of 45 months and the landlord was required to file civil suit. This circumstance alone is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant is habitual defaulter. The lower court has passed the order correctly and properly on this count.” 9. In the body of petition, the finding quoted in foregoing para has not been challenged. Only ground agitated is that the landlord did not give notices. The fact of filing of a suit and decree passed therein is not disputed. 10. In so far as other grounds of eviction are concerned, granting of permission on those grounds would, in the result, be of no significance. 4 11. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau|