1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.585 OF 2009 Bhaskarrao Gunwantrao Tekade and anr. .vs. Madhukar Sadashivrao Dharamthok ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's orders. Order. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 15th JUNE, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.V.A.Kothale, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Lakhey, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the two concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The respondent is the landlord while the petitioner is the tenant. 3. Respondent instituted a suit for possession of the suit property on three counts i) that the petitioner was in arrears of rent, (ii) that the petitioner has sublet the suit premises and (iii) that the respondent requires the house for bonafide occupation. Both the courts below found that the petitioner/defendant was in 2 arrears of rent and had failed to pay arrears of rent within ninety days of service of notice and that the requirement of the respondent/landlord was bonafide. The courts below, however, rejected the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has sublet the premises. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that the findings of the courts below are not proper since he submits that the respondent was in fact put in possession of six rooms and he is claiming that he requires the premises for accommodation of his five daughters who are married. He submits that the requirements of married daughters cannot be said to be the requirements of the landlord. The submission cannot be accepted. It is the choice of the landlord whether he should or should not accommodate his own daughters in his house. He wants to accommodate his own daughters in his own house, the requirement has to be treated as a requirement of the landlord himself. There is no reason for me to take a different view than what is taken by the courts below. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant further submits that the landlord was demanding the rent which was due to the earlier landlord and he had no right to make such a demand. The submission has no force. The observations of the courts below show that the sale-deed containss a recital granting 3 the present respondent/landlord to recover the arrears of rent. In view of this, the present landlord/respondent has had every right to issue a notice recovering that rent. The courts below have found as a fact that the petitioner has not paid the rent after service of the notice within ninety days. In view of the fact that the rent is not paid within ninety days consequences as given in Section 15 of the Mah.Rent Control Act, 1999 must follow. In view of this, I do not find any substance in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. 6. Shri Kothale, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner may be granted some time to vacate the premises in view of the ensuing rainy season. The prayer is opposed. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, I find that the petitioner should be granted six months’ time to vacate the premises in view of the fact that the rainy season is about to commence. The petitioner is granted, therefore, six months’ time to vacate the premises from today. The petitioner to furnish an undertaking before the court to that effect within a month’s time. JUDGE. chute 4