2212lpa257.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR L. P. A. NO. 257 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3623 OF 1999 Shyamlal Kodelal Jaiswal Vs. Robin Basudeo Ozha & Ors. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri A. P. Padhye Adv for appellant. Shri N. S. Khubalkar AGP for respondents 1 & 2. Shri R. M. Ahirkar Adv for respondent 3. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P. D. KODE JJ. DATED: 22nd DECEMBER, 2011. Heard Shri Padhye learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord, learned AGP for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Ahirkar for respondent no.3. Learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition of appellant/landlord and found that reviewing authority has taken the different view of the matter on the strength of very same material. In the light of this finding and judgment of this Court reported in Mahendrabhai Purushottam Patel Vs. Vasant 2212lpa257.11 2 Mahadeorao Sangole 1996(1) Maharashtra Law Journal 339, we have considered arguments advanced by learned counsel. Earlier there was some dispute between parties whether the electric charges formed part and parcel of rent amount. After adjudication thereof the tenant paid all arrears and rent for the period from 01.01.1981 till 31.12.1981 excluding electric charges was also forwarded in the month of January 1982. The Rent Control Appellate Authority appreciated this position and held that the tenant was not a habitual defaulter. Insofar as bonafide need is concerned, the appellant/landlord residing in a small village stated that he wanted to educate his children at a district place i.e. at Yavatmal. The appellate authority found that except for expressing this desire, no other material was produced on record to show such intention. This adverse order of appellate Court was then challenged by landlord in review under Clause 21 of C. P. And Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The reviewing authority has on the basis of very same material noted that the tenant had cleared amount of rent in arrears and therefore he was habitual defaulter. It also found that the landlord admittedly resided at a small place and wanted to educate his 2212lpa257.11 3 children in district place. Such need as expressed could not have been viewed as not bonafide. We have considered the respective orders. Merely because the tenant is in arrears it is not sufficient to lable him a habitual defaulter. Appellate Authority had rightly applied its mind and reviewing authority has over looked this aspect. Similarly we have attempted to find out whether there was any material produced by appellant/landlord on record to substantiate the need expressed. The only material looked into by reviewing authority to take a different view in the matter is the residence of landlord at a small village and his desire to educate his children in district place. The civil suit was first decided and thereafter in 1981-82 rent control proceedings were filed. These proceedings were disposed of on 04.05.1990. Therefore, the appellate authority has attempted to find out material on record to gather the conduct of appellant and evidence if any produced by him so as to enable it to ascertain the bonafides of his demand. There is no such material admittedly produced on record. Hence, in impugned judgment learned Single Judge correctly found that the reviewing Authority has incorrectly interfered in the matter. The reported judgment of learned Single 2212lpa257.11 4 Judge points out the para-meters of exercise of jurisdiction under Clause 21 of C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Orders and it does not help the appellant Learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the controversy. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. J UDGE JUDGE svk