W.P.No.6683 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6683 OF 2010 Iqbal Rafiq Mirza, Age 80 years, Occu.Trading R/o Ward No.2, Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Laxman Hari Nikumbh, Deceased through L.Rs. 1-A Ananta Laxman Nikumbh, Age 58 years, Occu.Tailoring R/o Ward No.2, Kukreja Building, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar 1-B Sau.Sunanda Jagannath Pawar, Age 55 years, Occu.Household, R/o Limbayagram Subhashnagar, A/P Udhana, Taluka and Dist.Surat 1-C Raghunath Laxman Bikumbh, Age 42 years, Occu.Tailoring, R/o Back side of Kazibaba Darga, Ward No.2, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar 1-D Sau.Radha Prakash Jadhav, Age 39 years, Occu.Household, R/o Bhavani Chowk, Kopargaon, Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar 1-E Ravindra Laxman Nikumbh, Age 49 years, Occu.,Tailoring 1-F Shreeram Laxman Nimumbh, Age 37 years, Occu.Tailoring work, Both R/o Ward No.2, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar W.P.No.6683 of 2010 2 (2). Shahinjaba Rafiq Mirja, | Deleted as Age 42 years, Occu.Labourer | per leave of the Court | dated 24.11.2010 3. Khairunnisa Rafiq Mirza, Age 70 years, Occu.Household, R/o Ward No.2, Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.K.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Mr K.B.Jadhav, Advocate for respondents 1-A, 1-C, 1-E, 1-F Rest of the respondents served CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21st December 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard extensively. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The tenant questions the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrirampur in R.C.S.No.312/1992 directing eviction on two counts, confirmed by the learned District Judge-1, Shrirampur, in R.C.A.No.20/2003 dated 18.2.2010. 4. The inter se relations of the petitioner as a tenant and respondent as landlord of the suit premises is not in question. The rental fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- for each room including the commencement of the tenancy on the first day of each month is also not in question. The fact remains, the respondent as landlord branded the petitioner to be in default in paying rents from 1.6.1992 to 7.8.1997. Consequently, an amount of Rs. W.P.No.6683 of 2010 3 2,440/- was due against the petitioner. The respondent also claimed that he has three married sons and suit property is bona fidely required for the personal occupation of the married sons, since the family is expanded. 5. The Courts have recorded a concurrent finding about default of the petitioner and I do not see any error in such observation. The tenant was in arrears of Rs.2,440/- and even if the figure is taken as Rs.2,400/-, it was incumbent upon him to have remitted the amount before commencement of the proceedings. However, the suit was filed on 1.10.1997 and thereafter on 29.3.2000, the petitioner has deposited the amount. It also does not cover the amount of Rs.2,400/-. It is a matter of record, even in between from date of institution of the suit till the issues are framed, there was no remittance from the tenant/petitioner. Depositing Rs.3,200/- intermittently will not absolve liability of the petitioner as tenant to make regular remittance. The petitioner has breached the terms under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Bombay Rent Act and consequently, the petitioner is proved to be a defaulter in discharging his obligation as a tenant. I do not see any perversity in the order to disturb it. 6. The learned District Judge reversed the finding of bona fide requirement. This is contrary to the record and evidence. The family of the respondent over the efflux of time has expended. His sons are W.P.No.6683 of 2010 4 married and they naturally need the premises for occupation. It is expected that the sons of the respondent are residing in the same family. Consequently, mere suggestion that there are other available rooms to the married sons by itself will not lead them to live happily. Consequently, the observations of the learned District Judge on this count calls for interference. I hold that the requirement of the landlord-respondent was bona fide and it was to meet the pressing needs of the family and it should not have dictated to remain in a squeezed position in available accommodation. 7. Writ Petition lacs merits, dismissed. Rule discharged. 8. The petitioner to vacate the suit premises up to 30th June 2012. He will give a regular undertaking to the Registrar of this Court to vacate the suit premises on or before 30th June 2012, on regular terms, including the remittance of entire rent. Such undertaking to be furnished within four weeks from today. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/6683.10wp)