: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2010 Elvira F. Rodrigues .. Applicant V/s. Dhirajlal P. Jaradi .. Respondent Mr. Vishwajit P. Sawant for the Applicant. Mr. G.S. Bhat for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 28 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the two Courts below that the applicant was in arrears of payment of rent. The Small Causes Court, Bombay, has decreed the Suit No.1065/2193 of 1996 filed by the respondent-plaintiff and held that the applicant-defendant was liable to be evicted from the suit premises for being in arrears of rent and permissible increases from December, 1995 to August, 1996 and arrears of repair cess from April, 1995 to November, 1995. Both the Courts below have held that the notice dated 5th September, 1996 terminating the tenancy was valid. : 2 : 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the suit notice dated 5th September, 1996 is not in accordance with law, since it terminates the tenancy while calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent. This submission cannot be accepted as the correspondence exchanged between the parties was on record before the Courts below, including a letter dated 14th February, 1996, indicating that the landlord had called upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent and permissible increases earlier. The letter of 5th September, 1996 was only a consequence of the non-payment of the rent despite the earlier demand. 3. It is also argued on behalf of the applicant that she has paid rent with the permissible increases as indicated by the Municipal Corporation. All these factors have been considered by both the Courts below and they have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the tenant is in arrears of rent. : 3 : 4. Admittedly, the standard rent application filed by the applicant-tenant has been dismissed on 4th April, 2005. 5. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed as there is no perversity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 6. On the application made by the learned Advocate for the applicant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of one year from today subject to the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicant and all the adults in her family to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. .......