1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3138 of 2011 Majid Khan s/o Habib Khan ..VS.. Abdul Raheman Khan (Dead) through His L.Rs. Smt. Shahida Begum. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Masood Shareef, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 15 th September, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the District Judge-10, Nagpur on 7.12.2010 reversing the judgment passed by the trial court dismissing the suit filed by the respondent under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 2] The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and had not paid the rent from 1999 to 2002. The petitioner denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that the defendant/petitioner was not liable to pay any rent to the respondent/plaintiff as the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant in regard to the tenanted property and according to the agreement of sale of the year 1995, the defendant was not liable to pay any rent to the plaintiff. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2 3] It is necessary to note that before the institution of the present proceedings a suit was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.5400/- from October, 1996 to September, 1999 against the defendant and the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. Though the judgment passed in that suit was reversed by the first appellate court, this court in Writ Petition No. 3276/2005, reversed the judgment passed by the appellate court and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. With the result, the defendant was made liable to pay the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.5400/- to the plaintiff for a period of 3 years. On the basis of the decree passed in the suit for recovery of the arrears of rent, the first appellate court by the impugned judgment dated 7.12.20-10 reversed the judgment passed by the trial court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction and possession. 4] There is nothing wrong with the judgment passed by the appellate court on 7.12.2010 setting aside the judgment dated 15.9.2005 and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the suit property under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The first appellate court rightly relied on the fact that the previous suit filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent was decreed and the finding on the question of liability of the defendant/tenant to pay the rent had become final. The clear finding against the petitioner/defendant that he was liable to pay the arrears of rent for the period of three years was binding on the parties in the present suit as the parties were litigating under the same title that of the landlord 3 and tenant. Since it was held in the previous suit that the petitioner was liable to pay the rent to the landlord for the period from October, 1996 to September, 1999, the petitioner could not have again relied on the agreement of sale of the year 1995. The first appellate court was justified in holding that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and had not deposited the arrears of rent within a period of 90 days from the service of summons on the petitioner. Since the petitioner was a defaulter, the first appellate court rightly granted a decree of eviction under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The observations made by this court shall, however, not cause any prejudice to the case filed by the petitioner for specific performance of contract. JUDGE Hirekhan