Oral Judgment:

The petitioner tenant before this Court is challenging the judgment dated 18/2/2005, delivered by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2003 and prays for dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.589 of 2001 filed by respondent-landlord before the Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Akola. In that suit, eviction of the petitioner and possession was sought under Section 15 & 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The 2nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akola on 02/5/2003 decreed the suit partly and directed the Petitioner-tenant to handover the possession within two months. It decreed the suit only on the ground that his bona fide need was proved by the respondent-landlord.

2. In Regular Civil Appeal No.190/2003, filed by the present petitioner, a cross-objection or Counter appeal was filed by the landlord seeking entire relief as per plaint prayers. The learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola, found that the landlord proved that the tenant was in arrears of rent, plus, taxes and permitted increase and interest, totaling to Rs.9,471/-, but held that, said issue was partly proved. If further held that the grievance about nuisance by the tenant was also substantiated. It found that bona fide need was not established by the landlord. It, therefore, maintained the decree of eviction, but on the ground of arrears of rent for the year 2001-2002 and for causing nuisance.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is tenant of a godown situated in the area, known as ‘Mangaldas Market’ of Akola and his tenancy is yearly, commencing from Diwali and ending by Diwali of succeeding year. The rent is stated to be Rs. 3,360/- for 12 months i.e. monthly rent of Rs.280/-. The Respondent-landlord issued notice dated 11/8/2001 to the petitioner and informed them that the petitioner has to pay advance yearly rent of Rs.3,360/-, amount of Rs.280/- for ‘Adhik Mass’ and municipal taxes. It was stated that the petitioner was in arrears of taxes for last two years and taxes for 12 months came to Rs.1,478/-. The landlord also stated that during the Diwali-2000 to Diwali2001, there was Adhik Mass and petitioner did not pay the rent of Rs.280/- for said Adhik Mass. The landlord, therefore, demanded these amounts along with permissible interest of @ 15% per annum and threatened with suit for eviction as per Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, in default. He also mentioned that by carrying activity of assembling bicycles in open land in front of godown, the petitioner was creating nuisance and obstruction to landlord and other occupiers in Mangaldas Market. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to stop that activity.

4. This notice was replied by the petitioner tenant on 22/8/2001, pointing out that the tenancy was yearly and rent of Rs.3,360/- was payable in advance. The tenant also stated that rent was not excluding municipal taxes. The demand for arrears of municipal taxes or for payment of separate rent for Adhik Mass was also denied. About nuisance, petitioner stated that there was no nuisance or obstruction to landlord or to other occupiers of the area and since beginning i.e. since the time of father of present respondent, petitioner was using open land for assembling bicycles and other related works. He also claimed that said open land in front of the godown, formed part and parcel of tenanted premises and it was being rightly used by him.

5. It is in this background that the landlord filed suit under Section 15 & 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act on 10/12/2001. The result of the litigation till adjudication in appeal is already mentioned by me above. It appears that tenancy was initially created in 1964.

6. In this background, Advocate Shri A.S.Chandurkar for petitioner-tenant has contended that the Civil Court decreed the suit only on account of bona fide need and other grounds were rejected by it. The appellate court has set aside the said fi