1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.257 OF 2009 Smt.Lajwanti D. Hariramani. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Sudhakar T. Bidkar ..Respondent. Mr.D.B.Sawant for petitioner. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Court below, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. 3. The argument of the Petitioner that the factum of reasonable cost is not pleaded in the plaint, for which reason, no decree could have been made. This argument clearly overlooks the well established position that the standard of pleading, as is applicable to the proceedings before the Civil Court, the same high standard is not to be invoked in respect of the rent act proceedings. In any case, the evidence on record, as has been rightly found by 2 the Appellate Court leads to inescapable conclusion that the ground under section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act was made out. The tenant has taken nationality and citizenship of Indonesia from 21st October, 1988. The Appellate Court has found as of fact that neither electricity nor water supply was provided for sufficiently long time, which presupposes that the premises was not in use for sufficiently long time. As the decree is based on substantive evidence, needs no interference. Hence dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)