1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.82 OF 2010 Dilip Ratilal Chetwani & others ..vs.. Vilas Annaji Ghule & ors =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri Amol Mardikar, advocate for the appellants Shri S.C. Bhalerao, advocate for the respondent no.1 C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2010. Heard Shri Mardikar, advocate for the appellants and Shri Bhalerao, advocate for the respondent no.1. The appellants are the original defendants. A suit was filed by respondent no.1 / landlord for ejectment of the appellants from the suit property and for possession of the same under the Maharashtra Rent Act 1999. Both the courts concurrently held that the landlord bonafide required the property for his personal need and less hardship could be caused to the appellants/ defendants, if they were required to vacate the suit house. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of facts and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The submission made on behalf of the appellants 2 that the present suit filed by the landlord was not tenable under the Maharashtra Rent Act 1999 as in a previous litigation between the parties, a suit filed by the landlord for ejectment and possession was dismissed for want of permission from the Rent Controller, is liable to be rejected. The appellants cannot rely on the provisions of section 58 of the Maharashtra Rent Act 1999 for substantiating the aforesaid submission as no proceedings between the parties were pending when the Maharashtra Rent Act 1999 came into force. Since the permission of the Rent Control is not required after coming into force of the Maharashtra Rent Act 1999, it can not be said that the suit filed by the landlord in the year 2003 under the provisions of Act of 1999 is not tenable. The other submission made on behalf of the appellants that the findings recorded by both the courts on the issue of bonafide need and comparative hardship is liable to be set aside in view of the mis-appreciation of the evidence on record, is also liable to be rejected as on a perusal of both the judgments, it is clear that the courts have considered the evidence tendered by the parties in a reasonable manner to arrive at the aforesaid findings. It also cannot be effectively canvassed on behalf of the appellants that the Small Causes Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the landlord as the appellant had raised a plea about the title of the 3 landlord on the ground that his predecessor in title had not sold the property to the landlord, as this plea was raised by the appellants in the previous round of litigation and was negatived by the competent civil court. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP