1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR L.P.A. No. 254/2007 Shri Lokchand Shankarrao Salwe and another vs. Kishor s/o Hemaji Sahare. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande & R.V.More,JJ DATE : 9.10.2007 Mr. R.R. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Naidu, learned counsel for the respondent. The appellants by filing this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, challenges the decree of eviction passed by the Small Cause Court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 2914/2007, on the ground of default and bona fide requirements. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 the tenancy agreement is required to be compulsorily registered and since in the present case as the agreement was not registered the suit for eviction was not maintainable. There is no dispute that the tenancy is entered into the year 1980. Perusal of Section 55 of the above Act reveals that same is 2` prospective in nature and does not operate retrospectively. The appellants, however, relied upon the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and contended that his tenancy was monthly tenancy, therefore, Section 55 of above Act has application in the Rent Case. However, in our opinion, there is no merit in this contention. In the absence of any argument challenging decree on the ground of default and bona fide requirements we do not see any merit in the contention of the petitioners that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that tenancy agreement was not registered. The appeal is devoid of any substance and hence the same is dismissed. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellants seeks short time to vacate the suit premises. The petitioners are staying in the suit premises since the year 1980 and, therefore, in our opinion, interest of justice will be served if the appellants are granted four weeks time to vacate the premises subject to usual undertaking to be filed within a period of two weeks from today. Judge Judge patle