1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 568/2011 (Rashidabee Abdul Sattar & others VERSUS Sheikh Majid Sheikh Hussain) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S. Raisuddin, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 11 , 2011 . Heard. The petitioners are the unsuccessful tenants, against whom, a decree has been passed by the trial Court for eviction and possession and the same has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. Both the Courts have held that the respondent-landlord was entitled to possession of the suit property under the provisions of Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts that the petitioners-tenants had neither paid the arrears of rent within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the notice by the tenants and had also not paid/deposited the arrears of rent within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. The finding of fact is based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 2 Similarly, both the Courts have held that there were eight members in the family of the respondent-landlord and the respondent’s son was of marriageable age. The respondent was staying along with his family members in only two rooms in Ashinagar and those premises were extremely insufficient for accommodation of the respondent and his family members. Since there were 5 major members and 3 children in the family, the Courts held that the respondent has proved his bona fide need to occupy the suit premises. As regards comparative hardship, the Courts held that the hardship, which would be caused to the landlord would be greater than the hardship which would be caused to the tenants, in case, the decree is not granted in favour of the respondent as the respondent’s family genuinely required the premises for their bona fide occupation and there was nothing to show that the petitioners-tenants had made efforts to search for an alternate accommodation during the pendency of the proceedings. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issue of bona fide need are also just and proper. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a request that the petitioners may be permitted to occupy the premises for a period of six months as the petitioners are residing in the said premises for nearly fifty years. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners are permitted to occupy the suit premises only for a period of three months and the premises should be vacated by the petitioners on or before the 12th of May, 2011. 3 Order accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE