1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 352/2011 (Panchanbhai S. Patel VERSUS Smt. Harsha R. Lakhani & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.S. Murthy, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 31 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court holding that the respondent-landlady was entitled to seek possession of the suit property under the provisions of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The Courts concurrently held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that the defendant was in arrears of rent from 01.01.2000 till January-2002 i.e. till the filing of the suit and the plaintiffs were entitled for a decree of possession. The respondents had filed a suit for ejectment and possession of the petitioner from flat no.202 situated at Geeta Bhavan, first floor, Municipal House no.130 in Ward no.23, Quetta Colony, Nagpur. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the husband of the plaintiff no.1 by name Rajesh had purchased the suit premises from the widow of Ramchandra Sugandh & 10 others by registered sale-deed dated 20.12.1999. It was pleaded that the defendant was occupying the suit premises as a tenant for several years and on the purchase of the suit property, Rajesh, the husband of plaintiff no.1, had issued a telegraphic notice to the petitioner about 2 the attornment of tenancy on 26.01.2000. It was stated in the notice by the husband of the respondent no.1 that flat no.202 was purchased by him and he had sought the possession of the suit premises for his bona fide occupation and the petitioner was liable to handover the possession of the suit property under Section 15 and 16 of the Act of 1999. The petitioner resisted the claim of the respondents and pleaded that the petitioner was in occupation of flat no.4 let out to him by one Smt. Farhad Bano, wife of Ramchandra Sugandh, since 1985. It was pleaded by the petitioner that he was ready and willing to pay the rent to the person who establishes his ownership over the suit premises and also on establishment of the identity and oneness of flat no.202 and flat no.4. The claim of bona fide requirement was also denied. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs had rightly established that they had purchased the property, which was occupied by the petitioner as a tenant and a notice of attornment was also served on the tenant. The Courts found that the description of the suit premises tallied with the description of the property purchased by Rajesh, the husband of plaintiff no.1, by the sale-deed at Exhibit 90 for a valuable consideration. The Courts considered the fact that the petitioner had pleaded that he was the tenant of one Farhad Bano, wife of Ramchandra Sugandh and it was apparent from the sale-deed that she was one of the co-owners of flat no.202, which was purchased by Rajesh from Geetabai Sugandh & 10 others. The Courts relied on the admission of the defendant in his cross-examination that he 3 had deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards deposit with Farhad Bano and he had received that amount from Farhad Bano in March-2001. The Courts heavily relied on the admission of the petitioner in his cross-examination that Farhad Bano had sent a Demand Draft of Rs.15,000/- as refund of deposit amount through the attorney by a letter, stating therein that he should pay further rent to the husband of plaintiff no.1, i.e. Rajesh. The petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that in spite of the receipt of the letter, he had not paid the rent to Rajesh or the plaintiffs. The Courts rightly considered that all the notices issued by the respondents were addressed to the petitioner on the address at flat no.202 Geeta Bhavan, Quetta Colony, Nagpur and the same were duly served on the petitioner, received by the petitioner and were also replied to, by him. The Courts further found that the petitioner had also admitted that there was no other Geeta Bhavan or any other plot no.130 in Quetta Colony, Nagpur. It also appeared from the cross- examination of the petitioner that there was no other person by name Panchanbhai Shivjibhai Patel on the first floor or even in the rest of the flats in Geeta Bhavan. Since the petitioner's name was Panchanbhai Shivjibhai Patel and he had admitted to the aforesaid effect, the Courts rightly held that the plaintiffs had succeeded in establishing that the defendant-petitioner was the tenant in the suit premises and was not desirous of paying the rent to the landlady. Both the Courts rightly held that the petitioner was a defaulter as he had not only failed to pay the rent within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the notice but, had also failed to deposit the arrears of rent in the 4 Court within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the summons. The Courts considered that the petitioner had received the notice of attornment and it was also not the case of the petitioner that he had paid the rent, which was sought by the plaintiffs, to any other person, whom he treated as his landlord/landlady. The Courts held that the petitioner could have deposited the rent amount in the Court under protest and/or by seeking an order from the trial Court prohibiting the plaintiffs from withdrawing the amount till the conclusion of the suit. Since the suit was instituted in the year 2002 and the amount was deposited for the first time in the year 2004 and thereafter in 2005, i.e. after a lapse of about nineteen months from the date of filing of the written statement and beyond twenty months from the receipt of the suit summons, the Courts rightly held that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the suit property. The findings recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE