spb/- 1 cra1125-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1125 OF 2010 Nandkumar Haribhau Bhosale & Ors. ... Petitioners/ Applicants. V/s. Mahadeo Vithal Manjul, since deceased through legal heirs & L.Rs. 1. Sharad Mahadeo Manjul & Ors. ... Respondents. ­­­ Mr. Suresh Bhosale for the Petitioners/Applicants. Mr. Pankaj Das for the Respondent Nos.1,2, 4 to 6A. ­­­­­ CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 10th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 In a suit filed by the respondents against the revision applicants for a decree for possession, the lower appellate court passed a decree for possession on the ground that the applicants were defaulters in payment of the rent and had not paid the arrears of rent within one month of the notice of demand and had also not deposited the rent regularly in the court in the standard rent application filed by them. 3 Relying upon a decision of this court (rendered by myself) in the case of Sitaram Narayan Shinde vs. Ibrahim Ismail Rais, (2005 (1) ALL MR 74), the learned counsel for the revision applicants submits that there was no proper notice of demand and therefore, a decree for spb/- 2 cra1125-10.sxw eviction could not be passed. The notice in that case was only of termination of a tenancy and demand of rent was not made by the notice. That case is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the notice was not only a notice of termination of tenancy but clearly it was a notice of demand also. Paragraph­2 of the notice specifically states that the revision applicants were in arrears of rent for a period of 10 years at the rate of Rs.35/­ per month and the notice issued further specified that the total arrears of rent were Rs. 4200/­. In the last paragraph of the notice, the respondents had made a demand of the arrears of rent. In the circumstances, the decision in the case of Sitaram Narayan Shinde’s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. No other point was urged. 4 The Civil Revision application is rejected summarily. 5 After this order was pronounced in the open court, the learned counsel for the revision applicants prays for some time to vacate the suit premises. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. In my view, the applicants can be granted some time to vacate the premises. Hence, the execution of the decree for possession is stayed for a period of six months subject to the revision applicants’ depositing all the arrears of rent in the trial court within two weeks and subject to their filing of an undertaking in this court in the usual form within two weeks. In the event the arrears of rent are not deposited in the trial court or undertaking is not filed in this court within two weeks, the decree can be executed forthwith. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]