1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.169 OF 2011. Mr.Siraj Hussain Khokar ..vs.. Jama Masjid Committee Pandharkawda and ors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.A.A.Bade, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.I.Sheikh, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 23, 2011. 1. Heard Shri Bade, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, holding that the respondents were entitled to the possession of the property under the provisions of section 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 3. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the courts were perfectly justified in holding that the respondents were entitled to grant of possession under the provisions of 2 Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Both the courts rightly held that the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of rent as demanded by the notice within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the notice under Section 15 of the Act and had also failed to deposit the entire arrears of rent with 15% interest thereon within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the suit summons. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- before the Trial Court in lump sum before the written statement was filed and therefore, the bona fides of the petitioner were clear is liable to be rejected, as entire arrears of rent due and payable by the petitioner were not deposited by the petitioner before the Trial Court within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the suit summons. 4. The courts, on a proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record concurrently held that the respondents proved that they bona fide required the suit property for their occupation and greater hardship would caused to the respondents in case the suit filed by the respondents was not decreed. The findings recorded by both the courts on these aspects are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record and they call for no interference in exercise of the 3 writ jurisdiction. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent did not have any authority to file the suit for possession on the ground of bona fide need under Section 16(1)(g) of the Act of 1999, as the suit in this regard was not based on the Resolution is also liable to be rejected. It cannot be said that the suit under Section 16(1) (g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 could not have been instituted in the absence of a resolution to that effect. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE chute