( 1 ) LANDLORD-RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3 are in need of the additional premises owned by them which has been let out to the petitioner- original plaintiff. Therefore, a petition filed in the Small Causes Court of Pune on 18th October, 1985, after giving due notice dated 8th May, 1984 and demanded the possession on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need, as contemplated under section 13 (l) (a) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short "the Bombay Rent Act")

( 2 ) THE petitioner-tenant resisted the same by Written Statement dated 26th august, 1986. The evidence was led by the parties viz. PW1 Madhukar dattatraya Kale, PW2 Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale, PW3 Shrikant Laxman gosavi, PW4 Nitin Prabhakar Gujar and one Mr. Rajnikant Damani DW1. The learned Judge, after considering the material, as well as, the evidence led by the parties on the record, granted the decree of possession. The Appellate Court, on the appeal filed by the petitioner, by judgment dated 9th December, 1992, confirmed the same on both the counts.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, gone through the respective evidence and reasoning given by the Courts below. Both the Courts below held that the monthly standard rent was Rs. 250/- + Rs. 42. 50 tax; petitioner-defendant was in arrears of rent and taxes for the period from 1st january, 1980 to 30th July, 1988, and, therefore, they were defaulters; the respondent landlords requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their own use and occupation for the business purpose; that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord if eviction, as sought, not granted and, therefore, awarded the decree for possession in question.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel Mr. Hushing, appearing for the petitioner, by referring to section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act submitted that the tenancy in question is yearly as the premises has been let out for manufacturing purpose, even though they were paying the rent monthly along with the cess. Both the Courts below, after considering the evidence led by the parties, have not accepted the said submission. There is nothing on the record, except the oral evidence by the tenant-petitioner, to suggest that the tenancy was yearly. On the contrary, there is a sufficient evidence and a admission on the record to suggest that the tenancy was monthly, basically through DW1 Rajnikant when, in his cross examination, he admitted that the demand made in the Suit Notice towards arrears of rent and tax etc. was correct. He further admitted that he paid the rent regularly every month. There is no dispute regarding the demand made in the suit premises. Merely because there were no regular rent receipts issued, that itself cannot be a ground to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the tenancy was yearly and but the rent was paid monthly, specially when admittedly the rent was paid monthly without any demur or objection. The parties can enter into any agreement even to pay the rent monthly for the premises, even though it is for non-residential purpose or used for manufacturing purpose as contemplated under section 106 of the Transfer of property Act. In absence of any material to support the same, the concurrent finding given by the Court below in this regard need no interference.

( 5 ) THE issue regarding arrears of rent is duly considered, based on the evidence led by the parties. There is no dispute about the issuance of notice or to its validity. There is no dispute about the receipt of the due notice by the petitioner and the demand made in the said Notice. The only defence was that no due receipts were issued or passed by the landlord. There is no further dispute that the rent was not paid regularly. Therefore, the finding given by the Courts below need no further discussion on this issue.

( 6 ) RESPONDENTS-LANDLORDS, being the owner of the premises, are the