wp4961.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4961/2011 Dharamsingh Sarjusingh Mahant -vs- Shyamrao Tulshiramji Tarale ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ None for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 05.10.2011. Shri Kaore, the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length on 04/10/2011. Since this Court was inclined to dismiss the petition, the matter was adjourned for today at the request of the counsel for the petitioner as the counsel for the petitioner wanted to take instructions in regard to withdrawal of the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner has stated on 04/10/2011 that in case the petitioner is granted some time to vacate the premises, he would seek instructions in regard to withdrawal of the writ petition. However, none appears for the petitioner today. The writ petition is being decided as this Court had already heard the counsel for the petitioner on 04/10/2011 and had also perused the judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Courts. wp4961.11.odt 2/3 Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent was entitled to a decree of eviction on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and the respondent required the possession of the suit premises for his bona fide occupation. The Courts found that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for a considerable period and had not deposited the arrears of rent along with fifteen per cent interest thereon within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the Court summons. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that though the rent was paid to the landlord, the landlord had not issued any receipt acknowledging the same, was rejected by both the Courts. The Courts also found that the petitioner had not raised this objection in the reply to the notice issued by the landlord. The finding recorded by the Courts on the aforesaid issue is a pure finding of fact and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The Courts found that the respondent required the suit premises for his bona fide need. The Courts observed that there were sixteen members in the family of the respondent and they were staying only in four rooms. Though in the cross-examination of the landlord, it was admitted that his son Kishor had premises in Darshan Colony, it was further clarified in the cross-examination that there was a flour mill in the said premises and his son Kishor was running it. The Courts found on an appreciation of the evidence on record that the need of wp4961.11.odt 3/3 the landlord was genuine and greater hardship would be caused to the landlord in case, the suit of the landlord was not decreed. Since the judgments passed by both the Courts are just and proper and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE