CRA/810/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.810 OF 2009 Chandu Bhiku Pardeshi ... Applicant V/s. Riddhi Siddhi Safe Deposit Voults Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. R.M. Haridas for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 4 TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. The applicant has approached this Court against the judgment and order dated 24th January, 2007 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 607/988 of 2005, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai by its order dated 6th November, 2009 passed in Appeal No.249 of 2007. 2. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the applicant is liable to be evicted from the suit premises. The applicant was in arrears of rent from 1st April, 2001 to 30th June, 2005. After the R.A.E. & R. CRA/810/2009 Suit No.607/988 of 2005 was filed and summons was served on the applicant on 8th July, 2005, he deposited the arrears of rent on 2nd August, 2005. However, admittedly, the applicant did not continue to deposit the rent while the Suit was pending. The trial Court and the Appellate Court, both, have found that the applicant had thereby committed a default as he had not complied with Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 3. Mr. Haridas, the learned Advocate for the applicant, submits that the default in depositing the rent regularly after the initial amount was deposited was about 14 months. He submits that the trial Court had permitted the applicant to deposit that amount and therefore it cannot be considered to be a default on the part of the applicant. He further submits that the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Laxman Hede vs. Noormohamed Adam Shaikh, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1111 , has observed that to take advantage of the provisions of protection from eviction under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), (for short “the Bombay Rent Act”), it cannot be said that exact or mathematical punctuality is CRA/810/2009 required. Mr. Haridas therefore submits that although there is a delay of 14 months in depositing the amount, that delay can well be condoned under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. He then submits that in view of a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shaikh Mohamad Suleman Noor Mohmad vs. Sayyed Isaq Sayyed Dadu, reported in 2002 (4) Mh.L.J. 668, the trial Court is empowered to extend the date for submitting the arrears for justifiable reasons. According to him, since the trial Court had extended the date, the applicant was not liable to be evicted. 4. Both the Courts below, in my opinion, have rightly found that the protection available to the applicant under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, has been squandered by him. Under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, it is mandatory that arrears of rent must be deposited within 90 days together with simple interest @ 15% p.a. It is incumbent on the tenant under this provision of law to continue to pay or tender in Court, regularly, such rent and permitted increases till the Suit is finally decided. CRA/810/2009 5. In the present case although the applicant has complied with the first stipulation contained in sub- section 3 of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, he has failed to comply with the latter part of the said sub-section. The tenant is required to regularly pay or tender the rent. While it could be said that mathematical precision is not required for depositing the rent each month, it still does not mean that 14 months of delay can be overlooked by the trial Court. Furthermore, the submission of the learned Advocate that since the applicant had been permitted to deposit the amount, the trial Court had condoned the latter part of the delay cannot be accepted. Merely therefore the Court had granted permission to the applicant to deposit the rent after a delay, it cannot lead to the inference that the delay was condoned. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 15 are mandatory. 6. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. 7. On the application made by Mr. Haridas, the learned Advocate for the applicant, this order is stayed for a period of 12 weeks from today.