NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR v. Shahurao Sitaramji Borkar & Anr.

Shri A.S.Mardikar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 09.10.2012. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the two concurrent judgments passed by the trial and the first appellate Court directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the property to the respondent No.1- landlord under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the tenant of one Waman and not of the respondent No.1 and, therefore, the petitioner did not pay any rent to the respondent No.1. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not received the notice issued by the respondent No.1 demanding arrears of rent, under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,

1999. wp4818.12-Order The petitioner failed to deposit the arrears of rent and permitted increases in the trial Court within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons. Since the petitioner was in arrears of rent, the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent No.1 and the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the same. On a proper appreciation of the material on record, both the Courts concurrently held that the respondent No.1 proved that he was the landlord of the tenanted premises. While holding so, the Courts considered the registered sale deed executed by Waman in favour of the respondent No.1. Though the petitioner had denied the receipt of the notice under Section 15 of the Act of 1999, both the Courts on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record held that the notice under Section 15 of the Act of 1999 was duly served on the petitioner. Since the petitioner was in arrears of rent and also did not pay/deposit the same in the trial Court within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the suit summons, the Courts rightly held that the petitioner was liable to deliver the possession of the property to the wp4818.12-Order respondent No.1. There is no error in the impugned judgments, much less a jurisdictional error to interfere with the same, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE