1 60­wp2945­11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2945 OF 2011 Madhavrao Wamanrao Dere & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Shashikant Digamber Potdar .. Respodnent ..... Mr. P. B. Gujar for the petitioners. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court. 2. The petitioners are the landlord­original plaintiffs who filed a suit for eviction against the respondent­tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. 3. The petitioners filed an application seeking a direction against the respondent by invoking Order XV A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.6,500/­ per month and to continue to pay a sum of Rs.6,500/­ per month till the disposal of the suit. The said application was opposed by the respondent by contended that the agreed rate of rent was Rs.1,500/­ per month and not Rs.6,500/­ per month. By 2 60­wp2945­11 the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the trial Court by holding that a direction cannot be issued to deposit the rent at the higher rate of Rs.6,500/­ without giving an opportunity to lead evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that by the impugned order, the issue regarding agreed rent has been concluded by the trial Court. He submitted that in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Girish Gangadhar Agrawal V/s. Jiteshkumar Hasmukha Vakhariya [2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 75], in the light of the provision of the Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 the respondent was duty bound to deposit the entire arrears of rent at the rate demanded by the petitioners. He submitted that if the amount as per the demand is not deposited, the decree for possession must follow. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be noted here that the impugned order is purely an interlocutory order. In paragraph No.1 of the order, the learned trial Judge has observed that there is a serious dispute between the parties as to what was the agreed rate of rent. The learned Judge, therefore, observed that this issue is required to be decided after parties adduce evidence. Therefore, issue of quantum of rent has not been decided by the impugned order and the said issue remains open. 3 60­wp2945­11 5. The decision of this Court in the case of Girish (Supra) will not help the petitioners at this stage. The trial Court is bound to pass a decree for eviction if compliance with statutory requirements is not made by the respondent. 6. As of today, there seems to be a serious dispute between the parties as regards the rate of rent. Therefore, the trial Court has rejected the application. Therefore, no case is made out for grant of interim relief. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)