1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5163/2011 (RADHESHYAM MAHADEOJI JAIS VERSUS MANOHAR PARASRAM NARAD & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 20 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondents-landlords were entitled to a decree of possession under Section 15 and Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The petitioner was in arrears of rent and the summons of the suit filed on 28.11.2005 was served on the petitioner on 16.12.2005. Though the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.5600/- in the Court on 04.01.2006, that amount was deposited towards the arrears of rent from 01.04.2005 to 31.10.2005. This shows that the petitioner had not deposited the rent due on 04.01.2006 along with interest @ 15% thereon, as required under the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. According to both the Courts, it was apparent from the record that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from time to time after filing of the suit and though the respondents had made an application claiming the rent of 17 months from the 2 petitioner, the application was rejected as the petitioner had paid the rent in the meantime. The Courts concurrently found that the petitioner was irregular in making payment of rent even after filing of the suit. Since the provisions of Section 15 of the Rent Control Act were not complied with, the Courts were justified in granting a decree of eviction against the petitioner. Both the Courts concurrently held that the respondent no.1 bona fide required the suit premises, which comprised of three rooms, for the business of his son. The Courts found on the basis of the evidence on record that the son of the respondent no.1 could store the grain in two rooms and could make a retail sale of the grain and vegetables from the third room, which was facing the road. The Courts found that the rooms in occupation of the petitioner were most suitable for the business of the respondent no.1's son. The Courts also found that the comparative hardship, which would be caused to the landlords would be greater than the petitioner. The Courts observed that it was necessary for the petitioner to plead and prove that after he received the notice for eviction, he had made efforts to search for alternate accommodation. The Courts also found that no other premises were more suitable for the landlords and, hence, the issue of comparative hardship was answered in favour of the respondents by considering the evidence on record. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The findings do not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE