1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 14/2010 (Jageshwar Amtu Walde VERSUS Mahadeo Narayan Sakhare) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri K.R. Lambat, counsel for the appellant. Shri V.D. Muley, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 30, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for arrears of rent and possession of the property. The suit property was a house situated in village Dhargaon bearing Gram Panchayat House No.309. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and also denied his tenancy. It was denied that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the house to the defendant. The defendant also denied the ownership of the plaintiff. Both the Courts, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving his ownership over the suit house and that the defendant was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. The Courts held that the defendant was in arrears of rent and, 2 therefore, a decree for arrears of rent was also passed against the defendant. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiff had not stated the reason for the eviction of the defendant in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and, therefore, his suit was liable to be dismissed is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not apply to village Dhargaon which falls within the Gram Panchayat area. The said village does not fall within the first schedule to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, seeks six months time for vacating the suit premises. Shri V.D. Muley, the learned counsel for the respondent, strongly opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant as the respondent is an old person aged 71 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, three 3 months time is granted for vacation of the suit premises. JUDGE APTE