Bainabai Wd/o Atmaram Nagdive v. Sunil s/o Laxmanrao Jambhulkar
2016-10-20
R.K.DESHPANDE
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : 1. Both the Courts below are concurrent in holding that the petitioners-defendants were defaulter in making payment of rent and that the landlord requires the suit premises for his bona-fide use of residence. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have gone through the judgment and orders delivered by both the Courts below. On the aspect of arrears of rent, an amount of Rs.648/- was claimed for the period from 01.11.1999 to 30.10.2002. The petitioners received the suit summon on 15.03.2003 and the amount of arrears of rent was deposited on 11.08.2003 i.e. after the period of 90 days. 3. The question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the notice for eviction was not served upon both the defendants, who were the tenants in succession of the tenancy of the father Atmaram. So far as bona-fide requirement is concerned, it is urged that the plaintiff-landlord was residing in the house owned by the mother and hence, the requirement is not established. 4. The undisputed factual position is that, the amount of arrears of rent was deposited beyond the period of 90 days as stipulated under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The petitioners are held to be the defaulters. Undisputedly, both the them were residing in the same house and the service of notice upon one of the petitioners has been established by producing an acknowledgment. 5. So far as the bona-fide requirement is concerned, the suit premises consist of only one room, which is owned by the respondent-plaintiff. Undisputedly, the respondent-plaintiff was residing in the house owned by his mother and wanted separate room for his own living after marriage. Two witnesses are examined by the respondent-plaintiff who have deposed the bona-fide requirement. Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding that the bona-fide requirement has been proved. In view of above, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.