1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal no. 229/2008 in W.P.No.3912/2007 Jaidurga Kirana Stores, through its Partner, Shri Asanand Dhalumal Vensiyani vs. Kanhaiyalal s/o Narayandas Khadwani ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.Lavande & P.D.Kode,JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 04.03.2009 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.03.2009 Heard Mr. A. M. Ghare, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.V.Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this letters patent appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Order dated 6th June, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3912/07 dismissing the petition filed against the Judgment and decree passed by the Ad hoc District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 217/07 by which the appeal preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2005 passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Reg. Civil Suit No. 165/03 was dismissed. The respondent is the landlord in respect of the suit premises admeasuring 1170 sq. ft. situated at Itwari Nagpur and the appellant is a tenant. 2` 3. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of non payment of rent, under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. According to the respondent, the appellant was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- since the appellant had not paid the said amount towards rents for the period between 1.1.1999 and 30.8.2002. According to the appellant, even before filing of the suit he had sent two money orders for the amount of Rs. 3000/- one of which was accepted and the other one was refused. The appellant also contended that the notice dated 5.8.2002 claiming arrears of rent from the appellant was not served upon him. 4. The trial court as well as the appellate court held against the appellant. Both the courts held that notice dated 5.8.2002 was served on the appellant and in so far as the arrears of rent are concerned even if the version of the appellant is accepted still the appellant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 5000/-. Consequently, both the courts held against the appellant. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition. 5. Mr. Ghare, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not in arrears of rent of Rs. 11,000/- as claimed in the notice dated 5.8.2002. He further contended that the said notice 3` was not served on the appellant. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as both the court below are liable to be set aside. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the findings given by both the Courts below that notice dated 5.8.2002 was served on the appellant cannot be faulted. Moreover, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant was in arrears of rent also can not be faulted. Even according to the version of the appellant, the amount of Rs. 5000/- was due on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the orders passed by both the courts below as well as by the learned Single Judge can not be faulted. Theres is absolutely no merit in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`