1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6137/2010 (Smt.Pushpa Gulabrao Kashyap & others VERSUS Smt. Rangoobai Santoshrao Kangale & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.Y. Wadodkar, counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.G. Jagtap, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 31 , 2011 . Heard. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioners-tenants were the defaulters and the respondent no.1-landlady was entitled to seek the possession of the suit property from the petitioners under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. So also, both the Courts held that the respondent no.1 was entitled to possession of the suit property under the provisions of Section 16(1)(g) of the Act of 1999. The respondent no.1 claimed to have purchased the suit property from the original landlord in the year 1992. Thereafter, it appears that several notices were issued by the respondent no.1 to the petitioners and those notices are produced by the respondent no.1 on record and are duly exhibited. The acknowledgments showing the receipt of these notices are also filed on record and are also exhibited. The plaintiff had purchased half portion of the suit house from heirs of Balaram Banode and half portion from 2 Shri Shobharam Banode. Both the Courts observed that it appeared from the documents at Exhibits 54 and 55 that petitioner no.1-Pushpabai had paid the rent for the month of July and August-1992 to the plaintiff at Rs.50/- per month. Petitioner nos.1's husband Gulabrao had also deposited the rent in the Court in distress warrant proceedings filed by the respondent no.1 in the year 1994. Document at Exhibit 67 showed that Shobharam & others had informed petitioner no.1's husband Gulabrao, Annapurnabai and Kiran that they had sold the house to the respondent and that respondent Rangoobai was the landlady. The receipt of the notice by Gulabrao can be revealed from the document at Exhibit 69. Several other notices were issued by the respondent no.1 to Gulabrao asking them to pay the rent of the suit property to the respondent no.1 but, in spite of the receipt of the notices, the rent was not paid to the respondent no.1. Ultimately, the respondent no.1 issued a notice to the petitioners on 28.12.2003 under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1999. The notice was served on some of the petitioners and was returned by some of the petitioners with an endorsement as “Not Claimed”. Petitioner no.1 Pushpabai had admitted in her cross-examination that rent from April-1996 to 30.03.2004 was due and payable at the time of filing of the suit. However, it was the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.1 was not the landlady of the house and, therefore, they were not paying the rent to her. Both the Courts, however, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the petitioners were defaulters and there was no inclination 3 on the part of the petitioners to pay the rent to the respondent no.1. The Courts held that it was not the case of the petitioners that they had paid the rent for the period from 1996 to 2004 to the original landlord and, hence, they were not liable to pay the rent to the respondent no.1. It is necessary to note that the rent was not paid by the petitioners to the respondent no.1 within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the notice under Section 15 of the Act of 1999. So also, the petitioners did not deposit the rent in the Court within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the summons. In case, the petitioners were desirous of paying the rent to the landlady, they could have deposited it in the Court under protest within a period of ninety days from the receipt of summons and could have raised an objection for the withdrawal of the same by the respondent no.1 during the pendency of the suit. However, this was also not done. The petitioners, for the first time, paid the arrears of rent in the year 2007-08. In such circumstances, the Courts rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of possession under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1999. Both the Courts were also justified in holding that the landlady was entitled to possession of the property under the provisions of Section 16(1)(g) of the Act of 1999. The Courts found that there were seven members in the family of the plaintiff consisting of the plaintiff, her husband, her three sons and the wife and daughter of one of the sons. Both the Courts considered the evidence of the plaintiff that she wanted to perform the marriage of her other two sons and, therefore, more accommodation was required. It was the case 4 of the landlady that she required the suit premises for her residence as well as for business purposes. The Courts considered the fact that one of the plaintiff's son by name Vijay was unemployed and the other son was doing the business at Mankapur and the premises in possession of the plaintiff was not sufficient for accommodating her entire family. The finding record by both the Courts on the issue of bona fide need is a pure finding of fact based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no.1 ought to have produced some documentary evidence on record to show the number of members in her family is ill-founded as the respondent had clearly pleaded about the number of members in her family in the plaint and had also deposed about the same in her examination-in-chief. It would be highly unreasonable to ask a party to produce documentary evidence to prove the number of members in the family. Hence, merely because no documentary evidence was produced by the respondent no.1 to show the number of members in her family, it cannot be said that the need of the respondent no.1-landlady was not bona fide. Since the finding recorded by both the Courts on the issue of default by the petitioners and the bona fide need of the respondent no.1-landlady are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, they cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5 At this juncture, an oral request is made on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners may be granted only two months time to vacate the suit premises as the petitioner no.3 would be getting married in the last week of February- 2011 and it would be extremely inconvenient for the petitioners to vacate the premises within a period of one or two months. Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-landlady, states that the oral request made on behalf of the petitioners is just and reasonable and this Court may grant only two months time to the petitioners to vacate the suit premises. Hence, the petitioners are permitted to occupy the premises only till the 31st of March, 2011 and handover the vacant possession thereof to the respondent no.1 on or before the 31st of March, 2011. Order accordingly. JUDGE APTE