Important Point - In case of failure to file undertaking within stipulated period, it would be open for the plaintiffs to proceed with the execution.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. This civil revision application has been preferred by defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 260 of 2007. Regular Civil Suit No. 260 of 2007 had been instituted by present respondent claiming to be owner and landlord of suit premises.

3. Suit premises are two room admeasuring about 300 square feet, situated on first floor of a building situated in CTS No. 1513 and 1514/2 at Wanjar Lane, in Ahmednagar city.

4. Suit premises were let out to one Savitri Ramchandra Sachdeva, on rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month. However, she had been in arrears of rent since November, 2004 onwards. She died on 16th March, 2005.

5. The applicant-defendant is daughter of Savitri Sachdeva. She occupies suit premises after death of Savitri.

6. The respondent-plaintiff had issued notice dated 13th March, 2007 by registered post to defendant and demanded arrears of rent up to 16th March, 2005 and compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month alleging illegal occupation after death of Savitri and, possession on various other grounds, inter-alia, for reasonable and bona-fide requirement.

7. According to plaintiff, neither the notice had been responded to nor possession had been handed over, as such, aforesaid suit ensued.

8. Defendant, in response to suit summons, had in defence filed written statement denying all the averments in the plaint excluding rate of monthly rent and her possession over suit premises. It was contended by the defendant that she was and has always been ready and willing to pay rent, however, the plaintiff had not accepted payment of rent from her. She had sent a sum of Rs. 2160/- by a cheque dated 21st March, 2007 to plaintiff along with reply to the notice. However, same had been received back. The defendant has deposited rent in court under an application and as such, she has not committed any default in making payment of rent. It is the contention of the defendant that she has not changed user of suit premises, as alleged. Students come to her for consultation and queries in respect of their studies and she is providing guidance and knowledge to them. She further denied that suit premises were in dilapidated condition. It is contended by her that plaintiff is a permanent resident of Shrirampur and has business at Babhaleshwar and has no intention to settle down at Ahmednagar. Suit premises are not, as such, required reasonably and bona-fide by the plaintiff. There are other rooms, which are lying vacant in the building. The plaintiff is not using those rooms. The defendant is staying alone in suit premises and have no other premises in possession providing accommodation and as such, would suffer greater hardship, if decree of eviction is granted against her.

9. Trial court, with reference to the pleadings, had framed necessary issues. Trial court had dismissed the suit, inter-alia, holding that the defendant is not a defaulter, tenancy is not terminated by notice and also holding in the negative that the plaintiff requires suit premises reasonably and bona-fide and it had considered that relationship of landlord and tenant had not ceased after death of mother of the defendant.

10. In the circumstances, the plaintiff-landlord had been before appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2011, wherein points for determination in respect of default being willful in making payment of rent and reasonable and bona-fide requirement of the landlord along with concomitant point regarding greater hardship between parties had also been framed. The appellate court found that there has been default, which has been willful and that the requirement of the landlord being reasonable and bona-fide and comparatively hardship suffered by the plaintiff would be greater than that of the defendant. The appellate court, as such, set aside the dismissal of the suit of the landlord and had decreed the same direct