1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2462 OF 2006 Zilla Parishad, Dhule Through its Chief Executive Officer ...Appellant Versus Ramrao s/o Sitaram Patil ...Respondent ..... Shri N.S. Chaudhari, Advocate for the appellants Shri. R. R. Patil, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1 The present appellant is original defendant in R.C.S. No.233 of 1997. The respondent is the original plaintiff and is owner of plot admeasuring 8000 Sq. ft. situated at CTS No. 2542/2-B at Dhule. It is the case of the original plaintiff-respondent herein that the said suit property was purchased by him for constructing hospital building for his son, who is medical practitioner at Dhule. 2 The defendant occupied the suit property as tenant of monthly rent of Rs.240/- p.m. from predecessor in title of the suit property. The plaintiff on purchasing the suit property, informed the defendant about sale transaction and requested to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property. In spite of the plaintiff’s request, the defendant failed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that in spite of resolution passed by the Zilla Parishad, the concerned Officers failed to deliver the vacant possession of the property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he issued notice on 11.8.1997 to the defendant that defendant is defaulter in paying rent from 12.12.1985 and the plaintiff is in bonafide need of suit property and requested the defendant to vacate the premises. The defendant refused to vacate the premises. 2 The respondent herein original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit and claimed last three years rent prior to fling of suit amounting to Rs.8640/- @ Rs.240/- p.m. and further claimed possession of the suit property alongwith other ancillary reliefs regarding inquiry into mesne profits. 3 The present appellant original defendant appeared in the suit and filed written statement at Exh.13 and resisted the suit. 3 The trial court framed necessary issues and after hearing the respective parties, decreed the suit by directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property as described in plaint of the plaintiff, within two months from the date of decree. 4 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appellant original defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2002 before the Additional District Judge, Dhule. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and maintained the findings recorded by the trial court except the finding on issue No.5. On issue No.5, the lower appellate court on independent scrutiny of evidence, held that the original plaintiff is in bonafide need of the suit premises. The lower appellate court held that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant is defaulter and that the suit premises is required to satisfy his bonafide need. 5 The original defendant i.e. appellant before the lower appellate court has filed this Second Appeal. The learned counsel appearing for 4 the appellant submitted that though there was compliance of Section 12(3) of the Bombay rent Act, both the courts below have recorded contrary findings. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the trial court negatived the contention of the plaintiff that the suit premises are required for bonafide purpose i.e. for the hospital, the lower appellate court has taken contrary view and came to the wrong conclusion that the plaintiff is in bonafide need of suit premises for construction of hospital for his son. According to the learned counsel, since both the courts have failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, the Second appeal deserves to be entertained and admitted on the grounds mentioned in the second appeal. 6 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the courts below and submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that the present appellant is defaulter in paying regular rent. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit premises were purchased by him merely for the purpose of constructing hospital for his son and therefore, the lower appellate court has held that the plaintiff is in bonafide need of the suit premises. According to the learned counsel, the second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court and 5 the same deserves to be dismissed summarily. 7 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for respondent, I am of the considered view that the present second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court on appreciation of evidence held that the present appellant was in arrears of Rent. The lower appellate court in para 10 of its judgment held that in the present case though the tenant has deposited the rent prior to first date of hearing, the said deposit being not along with the required amount of interest on the arrears of rent, the same cannot be said to a proper deposit, in order to avail the protection under Section 12(3) of Bombay Rent Control Act. 8 There is no reason to take a different view as taken by the lower appellate court in the instant case. Apart from the above, the lower appellate court which is last court on facts, has held that the respondent original plaintiff was in bonafide need of suit premises for the purpose of construction of hospital for his son and for that purpose only the said premises was purchased by him. There are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that the present appellant was defaulter. Noting has 6 been brought on record or argued to impress upon this court so as to take a different view. The second appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed summarily. 9 In view of dismissal second appeal, civil application No. 2462 of 2006 does not survive and the same is disposed of. *****