{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2007 Ramkumar s/o Mohandas Sambhwani, age: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o House No.116-132-4, HUDCO, Nanded, Taluka and District Nanded, At present C/o Ramnarayandas Gamdani, Sector 4, CIDCO, Vashi, New Mumbai. Petitioner Versus 1 Sundarabai w/o Babanrao Kongulwar, age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o HUDCO, Nanded. 2 Baabanrao s/o Gangaram Kongulwar, age: 58 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Hudco, Nanded. Respondents Mr.D.R.Markad, advocate holding for Mr.A.N.Kakade, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, advocate for respondents. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATE : 13 th September, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the District Court at Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No.142/2004 dated 26.09.2005, thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded on 30.10.2004 in Regular Civil Suit No.67/2001. Since the appellate Court, in para 2, has narrated the facts, {2} it is not necessary to repeat the said facts. 2 The Revision Applicant herein is original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.67/2001 and Respondents herein are original plaintiffs in the said suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against defendant for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent along with future interest and costs of the suit. 3 The trial Court framed as many as six issues. The first issue was in respect of arrears of rent from February-2001 to January-2004 to the tune of Rs.22,500/-. The trial Court, after recording evidence and after hearing the parties, answered the said issue in affirmative and held that the defendant - Revision Applicant herein is in the arrears of rent. The second issue was, whether tenant / defendant committed default in payment of rent. The said issue was also answered in affirmative. Another issue was, whether plaintiffs prove bona fide requirement in respect of the suit house. The said issue was also answered in the affirmative. 4 Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Applicant fairly concedes that no document was placed on record or evidence was placed on record or there was no application for deposit of rent by the revision applicants herein within ninety days from service of summons, in the trial Court. Therefore, the finding to the issue in respect of arrears of rent and default in payment of rent, has been rightly answered in affirmative by the trial Court against the defendant. 5 So far as aspect of bona fide requirement of suit house has {3} also been considered and after appreciating the evidence brought on record, the trial Court in para 14 of the judgment, has recorded a finding that the landlord needs the suit premises for bona fide requirement. Therefore, on both the aspects of arrears of rent and also bona fide requirement of the landlord, the trial Court has held against the defendant. The stand, which was taken by the revision applicant before the trial Court, was that the amount of Rs.15,000/- was borrowed by the plaintiffs-landlords from the revision applicant and also he has incurred expenses of Rs.10,000/- for fencing the suit house. Therefore, according to the revision applicant, recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.22,500/- should have been adjusted from that amount. However, the contention of the revision applicant that amount of Rs.15,000/- has been borrowed by the plaintiffs was not supported by any evidence and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence brought on record, the Court negated the said contention of the revision applicant. So far as another contention of the Revision Applicant that Rs.10,000/- has been spent on the fencing of the suit house, both the Courts have taken a view that it was not with the permission of the landlord or such amount cannot be adjusted against the arrears of rent. Though sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, enables the tenant and in the present case, the defendant to deposit arrears towards rent within ninety days from receiving summons, admittedly, arrears towards rent were not deposited by the defendant in the Court. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court on both the counts i.e. bona fide requirement of the landlord and also default by the defendant in payment of rent are in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the parties. The said findings have been confirmed by the appellate Court. {4} 6 It is also relevant to mention that before filing this Civil Revision Application, in execution proceedings, possession of the suit premises has been taken over by the landlord. It is the contention of the Counsel for Revision Applicant that such possession has been taken without following due process of law. However, it appears that notice was given to the Revision Applicant – tenant and after such notice, possession has been taken by the authority. Therefore, concurrent findings have been recorded by the Courts below. Viewed from any angle, no case is made out to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merit. Same stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. S.S.SHINDE JUDGE adb/cra15707