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 existing house at Vardhaman Nagar was not sufficient for their requirement. Therefore, they purchased the property from Sunil Joshi for self occupation and residence. According to plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 is a practicing advocate and is in need of disputed premises for the purpose of his office. Plaintiff No. 2 also requires disputed premises for running tuition classes. It was submitted that defendant was owner of shop block situated at Gayatri Palace Apartment, near Ayachit Mandir, Nagpur and he did not require the suit shop block.

v. In R.C.S. No. 343/2015, contention of plaintiffs was that after purchase of the property in 2008, petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 500/- per month at the beginning of tenancy. The tenancy was as per English Calendar on month to month basis. According to the plaintiffs, defendant/tenant failed to pay agreed rent since 17/10/2008 and remained in arrears of Rs. 35,500/- as outstanding. Notice was issued to defendant on 04/04/2014. Though defendant received the notice, he failed to comply and pay the arrears of rent. In the light of the above pleadings, plaintiffs claimed decree for eviction, possession and arrears of rent against the defendant. Both the suits came to be decreed by the trial Court.

vi. Appeals were preferred before the District Court. On 28/10/2015, First Appellate Court modified the quantum of rent and upheld the findings recorded by the trial Court regarding eviction and possession of the tenanted premises by the defendant. So far as the suit based on bona fide need is concerned, appeal came to be dismissed.

vii. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, these two petitions have been filed by the tenant against the landlords.

4. Heard Shri Nitin Bargat, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel for respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that lease-deed dated 07/10/2008 was duly proved by the defendant. From the said lease-deed, it can be seen that it was a lease in perpetuity. It is submitted that without considering the vested rights of petitioner and without appreciating duly proved lease-deed in proper perspective, the Courts below committed an error and held that the suit premises were required to be evicted and possession was to be delivered to the respondents.

5. Another contention raised on behalf of petitioner is that by virtue of provisions of Section 55(1) of the Rent Control Act, compulsory requirement of registration of leave and license agreement would indicate that it was obligatory on landlords to get the agreement registered. Learned Counsel submits that tenant was not responsible for not getting the agreement registered and in view of failure of landlords to comply with the statutory requirements, the terms and conditions of