Heard.

2. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner was liable to be evicted under Sections 15(1) and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 as he was a defaulter and the landlady required the premises for her bona fide need. The Courts concurrently found that the petitioner did not produce any evidence on record to show that the rent was regularly paid and had, in fact, admitted in his cross-examination that he had not paid the rent to the landlady. It was also clear from the evidence of the petitioner that in a distress warrant case, he had paid an amount of Rs.9,350/- towards rent for a period from 01.11.2000 to 30.09.2001. The petitioner had further admitted in his evidence that he had not paid the rent from 01.10.2001 till the filing of the suit. The notices issued by the respondent landlady asking the petitioner to pay the rent were also not complied with. The Courts, therefore, held that the petitioner was a defaulter and was liable to be evicted under the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act of 1999. It is an admitted fact that notices were issued by the respondent-landlady to the petitioner on 16.10.2001 and 05.03.2003 asking the pe