B.R. GAVAI, J.

Heard.

2. Admit. By consent of the parties, the appeals are taken up for hearing finally.

3. Both these appeals take exception to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2808 of 2012 on 15th October, 2012. These appeals are having chequered history.

4. In the present matters, the parties are referred by their nomenclature in original suit. The plaintiff has filed a Suit for ejectment, possession and mesne profits. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant was not using the suit premises and as such the plaintiff was entitled for a decree of ejectment and possession of the suit premises under section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The plaintiff had also sought possession under Section 16(1)(g) on the ground of bona fide need. It was further contended by the plaintiff that the defendant/tenant was in arrears of rent and as such also liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the said Act. The learned trial Judge, vide Judgment dated 25th April, 2008, though gave a finding that the plaintiff was entitled for possession under Section 16(1)(n) and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Order, dismissed the suit on the ground that the trustees of the Trust were not joined as parties and that there was no evidence to show that the trustee through whom the plaintiff had filed the suit, was a Managing Trustee of the Trust. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. During pendency of the Appeal, the plaintiff filed an Application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file original power of attorney authorizing the Managing trustee of the Trust to file the suit on behalf of the Trust. The learned District Judge, while allowing the application of the plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the stage of the Judgment, concurred with the findings of the learned trial Court regarding nonuser of the premises and bona fide requirements, and as such reversed the Judgment of the learned trial Court and decreed the suit vide Judgment and decree dated 3rd February, 2011. The tenant filed Writ Petition No. 2008 of 2011 before this Court challenging the findings of the learned appellate court. The learned Single Judge of this Court on 3rd May, 2011 passed the following order partly allowing the writ petition of the tenant.

"7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the first appellate court on 3.2.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the first appellate court for deciding the application filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure afresh on merits and then decide the appeal filed by the respondent, on merits and in accordance with law. Since the matter is an old one, the first appellate court is expected to decide the appeal as early as possible and positively within a period of 8 months from the date of this Judgment."

5. As directed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Appellate Court on 23rd November, 2011 allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for adducing additional evidence. The learned District Judge thereafter head the regular appeal on merits as per the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal vide Judgment and order dated 10.1.2012 thereby reversing the Judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and decreeing the suit. Being aggrieved thereby the tenant filed the Writ Petition No. 2808 of 2012. The learned Single Judge vide impugned Judgment dated 15th October, 2012 held that the learned Appellate Court had erred in upholding the findings of the trial court without discussing the evidence regarding bona fide requirements and non user of the premises. The learned S