SRINIWAS BABULAL Vs. RAMAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant has filed this petition invoking both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution Of India challenging the judgment and order dated 27/4/2006 passed by Second Additional Small Cause Court, Nagpur in Civil Suit No.458/2003 as also judgment order dated 21/11/2006 by District Judge4, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.377/2006. Matter has been heard finally as jointly requested by making Rule returnable forthwith.

(2.) Both the Courts have found that Respondent / Plaintiff has proved that Tenant is in arrears of rent and he is entitled to recover possession under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as Rent Act. Landlord's bonafide need is also held established under Section 16(1)(g) thereof and issue of the comparative hardship is also answered in his favour by both the Courts.

(3.) Before this Court the Landlord has given up the "need" and hence validity of that part of order/judgment does not fall for consideration here. That part of judgment therefore, does not operate to the prejudice of Petitioner Tenant. Said part granting decree of eviction on account of the bonafide need is therefore unsustainable and therefore, same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Hence, the Tenant has only argued the issue of validity of notice under Section 15 of Rent Act.