Kum. Indira Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. As challenge in both the petitions is identical, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts giving rise to the petitions may be stated in brief as under :

i. Petitioner is the tenant. Respondents are landlords. Petitioner was inducted in the premises in 1993 by original landlady Smt. Vidya Joshi. After the demise of landlady, her son Sunil Joshi stepped into her shoes.

ii. Respondents purchased the property in 2008 from Sunil Joshi. Since then, petitioner was the tenant of respondents.

iii. Respondents filed two civil suits for ejectment and possession of disputed property. R.C.S. No. 82/2014 was for ejectment and for recovery of possession under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Act' for short) on the ground of bona fide need. Another R.C.S. No. 343/2015 was based on Section 15 of the Rent Control Act on the ground of default in payment of rent.

iv. It was the case of respondents that their family comprises of three brothers, parents and children. The existin