A.S. Chandurkar, J.

1. Since both these writ petitions raised challenge to the judgment of the appellate Court between the same parties, they are being decided by this common judgment by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. Respective Counsel waive notice.

2. Writ Petition No. 211 of 2015 has been filed by the original plaintiff-landlady who had filed suit for eviction of the respondent - original defendant under provisions of Section 15, 16(1)(a),(g),(h) and (i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the said Act). The suit was decreed by the trial Court while the appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent partly and set aside the decree for eviction. The landlady being aggrieved by setting aside of the decree for eviction has filed the said writ petition. Writ Petition No. 6734/2015 is filed by the tenant challenging the judgment of the appellate Court to the extent of determination of standard rent @ Rs. 5000/- per month. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as landlady and tenant.

3. The premises in question admeasuring about 610 square feet area at House No. 839 is situated at Kamptee, District Nagpur. These premises including House No. 840 were initially owned by one Kishanlal Algare and Chotelal Algare. On 10.12.1981 said Kishanlal entered into an agreement for selling the suit property to the tenant who was already occupying the same. The tenant had filed suit for specific performance of aforesaid agreement against Kishanlal. The tenant was unsuccessful in obtaining the decree for specific performance and a direction to refund earnest money was issued. The decree for refund of earnest amount attained finality on 8.10.2003 when Second Appeal No. 232 of 2005 filed by the tenant came to be dismissed.

On 28.2.2008, the son of Kishanlal executed a sale deed of the aforesaid property in favour of the landlady. The tenant was in possession of House No. 839. On 28.11.2008, an intimation was given to the tenant by the landlady's vendor regarding aforesaid sale. At that point of time, the tenant was paying rent of Rs. 200/- per month. As the tenant did not pay rent to the landlady, a notice of demand came to be issued on 28.9.2010. As the tenant did not comply with the said notice, the landlady filed Regular Civil Suit No. 57/2010 for eviction of the tenant.

4. The tenant contested the aforesaid suit and denied the ownership of the landlady. According to the tenant, he was living in the said premises as owner thereof and not as a tenant. The landlady examined herself below Exhibit-29. The tenant examined himself and two other witnesses. After issue No. 1 was recasted, her son was examined. During pendency of the suit, the landlady filed an application for determination of standard rent @ Rs. 25000/- per month. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit and directed eviction of the tenant under provisions of Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of the said Act. The trial Court also fixed the standard rent @ Rs. 5000/- per month from 1.3.2008 onwards with interest @ 9% per annum. The tenant being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree filed an appeal under Section 34 of the said Act. The appellate Court held that though the tenant was in arrears of rent, the default on his part was not wilful. It further held that bona-fide need of the landlady had not been proved. The appellate Court, therefore, set aside the decree for eviction but maintained the determination of the amount of standard rent at @ Rs. 5000/- per month. This judgment has been thus challenged by both the parties.

5. Shri R.I. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the landlady submitted that the appellate Court was not justified in reversing the decree for eviction. According to him after the tenant failed in the suit for specific performance, his status as tenant of the premises stood established and, therefore, he was bound to accept the status of the plaintiff as his landlady. A