ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5686 OF 1998 PETITION NO. 5686 OF 1998 PETITION NO. 5686 OF 1998 Smt.Vasanti Rajanikant Nikam, Age 60 years, Occu. Household, R/o. 118/8, Samajata Matramandal, Shivdarshan, Parvati, Pune-9. ...Petitioner. Vs. 1. Shri Dagadoba Bapusaheb Ganjave, Age 74 years, Occu. Agriculturist, Plot No.66, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. 2. Dharmendra Rajanikant Nikam, Age 30 years, Occu.Plot No.65/1, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-30. ...Respondents. Mr.P.J.Pawar for the Petitioner. Mr.R.S.Apte for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 3rd DECEMBER, 2008. : 3rd DECEMBER, 2008. : 3rd DECEMBER, 2008. JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- The Petitioner-tenant has challenged the concurrent findings of facts, whereby both the Courts confirmed the landlord’s decree for possession on all counts under Section 12, 13(1)(l), 13(1)(g) and 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, "the Bombay Rent Act"). 2. The suit is for possession for one room situated on the ground floor of House No.65/1, Sadashiv Peth, ( 2 ) Pune. The Petitioner was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.15/-. She did not pay the rent regularly from 01/01/1988. She was not staying also in the suit premises for last 8 to 10 years and has acquired the suitable accommodation at 118/8 of Samajota Mitra-Mandal, Shivdarshan, Parvati, Pune. The Petitioner has inducted Respondent No.2 unauthorizedly and illegally as a sub-tenant and above all Respondents required the suit premises for their bonafide and reasonable occupation as the family is consisting of about 20 members. The present accommodation is not sufficient. 3. The Petitioner did not file written statement though appeared, and sought time from 19th January, 1996 to 28/11/1996. As Petitioner, who remained absent, the trial Judge passed no W.S.order against her and fixed for ex-parte hearing on 06/12/1996. It again adjourned to 21/12/1996 and on 09/01/1997 as asked, filed an affidavit in support of the case. Therefore, as inspite of sufficient opportunity given, both the Defendants for one reason or other, not filed the Written Statement. There is no sufficient reason mentioned even for the adjournments except the ground of illness of advocate. The Court has granted adjournments liberally. In landlord-tenant matters, ( 3 ) or even otherwise, the Defendants, if deliberately for no sufficient reason delayed the proceedings one way or other and not even file written statement though asked for time for the same and in the present case for more than 20 times, I see there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Courts below. As Petitioner deliberately avoiding the decree of eviction on the ground as raised, which in my view are sufficient, even otherwise to pass the decree for eviction. I see in this background, there is no perversity in passing the order of decree of eviction against the Petitioner. 4. Respondent No.1 -Landlord had demanded arrears of rent but the contesting Defendant did not object & paid the same. Defendant No.1 has acquired suitable accommodation and not residing in the premises for more than 8 to 10 years. Therefore, Plaintiff’s case that she has acquired alternative suitable residence is also proved. Defendant No.2 is in possession without consent and permission of Respondent No.1- Landlord through Defendant No.1. There is no denial and therefore, this ground also remained proved. The bonafide need of the landlord, in my view is also proved as there is no dispute to the fact that there are 20 members in his family and some of them are ( 4 ) recently married. The present accommodation is insufficient, therefore, requirement of premises for their bonafide need just cannot be thrown out only on the ground that the Defendants- tenants knowing fully the dates, not filed written statement and denied the averments made and not even contested thereafter. I see there is no reason to interfere with the decree for possession on this ground of bonafide need, as there is no comparative hardship need to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case as it is in favour of the landlord. 5. The courts below in view of the above background considering the affidavit in support of the plaint Exhibit 24 and as there is no denial to the averments made and based upon the documents in support of the same and as there was no application for even setting aside the no W.S. order and for the cross-examination rightly decreed the suit on all grounds. 6. Taking all this into account, I see there is no case made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the order of eviction as passed on all counts. The Petition is therefore, dismissed. . Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ( 5 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)