IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 208 OF 2007 REJINDERSINGH KARTARSINGH CHADDHA ..PETITIONER V/S SURJITSINGH BHOLASINGH MOKHA & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS MR. G.R. REGE WITH MS. SHAKUNTALA A. MUDBIDRI, ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. K.Y. MANDLIK WITH MS. LALITA PANCHAKSHARI, ADVOCATES, FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present Revision petitioner is the tenant of the suit premises situated in Pune. He had taken the premises on rent for residential purpose from the original plaintiff who died pending the suit. She had filed the suit in 1998 on two grounds. Firstly that the defendant had not used the premises for more than 6 months preceding the date of the suit without reasonable cause and secondly : 2 : the plaintiff landlady required the premises reasonably and bonafide for her own use. Pending the suit on 14-8-2001 plaintiff died and her LRs were brought on record. The suit proceeded only on the ground that the defendant was not living in the premises for more than six months preceding filing of the suit. After hearing the parties and evidence led by the parties, the trial court passed a decree of eviction holding that the defendant was not residing in the premises for more than 6 months. The defendant preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 436 of 2006. The Appeal came to be dismissed upholding the view taken by the Trial Court. The defendants preferred present Revision Petition. 2. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/tenant has taken me through the judgments of both the courts below. The courts below have pointed out that P.W. 1 Surjit Singh and P.W. 2 Musale stated that the defendant was residing in Nasik for more than 6 months prior to the filing of the suit. The defendant’s son had filed the affidavit in reply. In the cross examination he had stated that the defendant had let out his business premises at Shivaji Park, Pune. He was residing at Nashik. He produced some documents. Learned trial court noted that the ration card was : 3 : issued in the name of the Respondent showing that he, alongwith his family members, was residing at Nashik. His telephone connection was disconnected because he had not paid the arrears of the bill. The electricity bills produced by the defendant revealed that for 6 months there was no electric consumption in the suit premises. In the voters list for Nashik Municipal Corporation for the year 1997 the names of the defendant and his family members were shown at serial no. 601 to 606 and they were shown to be resident of Gopika Apartments at Nashik. Taking into consideration all these materials, the trial court came to the conclusion that defendant was not residing in the premises for more than 6 months prior to the filing of the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the trial court passed the decree for eviction under section 16(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1991 while the suit was filed in the year 1998. According to him, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on this ground itself. I am unable to accept this contention. Under section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, it is provided that the landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the court is satisfied that the premises has not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous period of 6 months : 4 : preceding the date of the suit. The same provision is made in section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Merely because the learned trial court committed error in mentioning section 16(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act instead of section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent Act the proceeding can not be vitiated nor the decree can be set aside. Inspite of the repeal of the Bombay Rent Act and the enactment of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, no change has taken place in the relevant legal provisions. 4. On facts I do not find any illegality or irregularity or mistake in the finding of the courts below. There is no substance in the Revision Application. 5. It may be noted that on enquiry as to when the petitioner/tenant would be willing to vacate the premises the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the decree may not be executed during the life time of the present petitioner and thus made most unreasonable prayer, which cannot be considered. 6. In view of the aforestated circumstances, the Revision Petition stands dismissed. (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J)