Judgment RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yavatmal and the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal holding that the respondent-landlord was entitled to possession of the suit property under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 3. The respondent had filed a small cause suit against the petitioner for arrears of rent and possession of the suit property. The respondent claimed that he was the owner of the suit property and the petitioner was a tenant in the same on a monthly rent of Rs.550/-. It was the case of the landlord that the petitioner had not paid the rent from 10.09.2001 to 09.12.2002 and from 10.07.2003 to 09.08.2003 i.e. for a period of sixteen months. The respondent claimed that the petitioner was irregular in the payment of rent and though the respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner on 03.04.2003, the arrears of rent were not paid within a period of three months. 4. The petitioner denied the claim of the landlord and also denied that he was irregular in payment of rent. It was the case of the petitioner that he was regular in payment of rent and the landlord had deliberately not accepted the money orders regularly sent by the petitioner to him. The petitioner denied that he was in arrears of rent for a period of sixteen months. 5. The trial Court framed the issues and after considering the evidence tendered by the parties on record, came to a conclusion that the landlord was entitled to the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.8800/-along with interest @ 8% per annum. The trial Court held that the respondent was entitled to possession of the suit block under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The judgment of the trial Court was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The appellate Court, however, by the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Both the judgments are challenged in the instant petition. 6. The judgment of the trial Court was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. The appellate Court, however, by the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Both the judgments are challenged in the instant petition. 6. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the judgments passed by both the Courts are liable to be set aside on the short ground that most material and vital admissions of the respondent-landlord in his cross-examination have not been considered by both the Courts while holding that the landlord was entitled to possession under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts erroneously held that the petitioner was not ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent as contemplated under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, though it was admitted by the respondent in his cross-examination that after the institution of Small Cause Suit No.198 of 2001 by the respondent, the petitioner had regularly paid rent to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the cross-examination of the respondent-landlord to point out that several vital admissions of the respondent-landlord, which may have prejudicially affected his case were not considered by both the Courts, while deciding the matter in favour of the landlord. 7. Shri Gulhane, the learned counsel for the respondent, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts and submitted that on a proper appreciation of the material on record, the Courts have recorded a finding that the landlord was entitled to possession under Section 15 of the Act and this finding may not be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Alternatively, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that in case, this Court is of the view that certain admissions of the respondent-landlord are not considered by the Courts and there is a failure on the part of the Courts to consider the material admissions, this Court may remand the matter to the first appellate Court in stead of admitting the same. The learned counsel for the respondent sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgments as also the evidence of the respondent in his cross-examination, it appears that both the Courts have not considered several vital admissions of the respondent-landlord in his cross-examination. In the cross-examination, the landlord had admitted that after the institution of Small Causes Suit No.198 of 2001, the petitioner had regularly paid the rent to the respondent. The landlord had also admitted that he received the rent from 03.04.2003 till 09.07.2003, which he accepted under protest. The landlord then admitted that it was true that after the previous judgment, he accepted a sum of Rs.550/-per month from the petitioner by money order. These admissions were relevant admissions for deciding the controversy between the parties and it was necessary for the Courts to have considered these admissions before deciding whether the landlord was entitled to possession under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The Courts failed in their duty in not considering the material admissions while answering the issues against the petitioner. 9. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the first appellate Court on 07.10.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the first appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.