1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 1997 of 2011 Prabhakar Venkobaji Manekar VERSUS Surendra Dinanath Sharma - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 29 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the court directing the petitioner to pay the rent of the suit premises to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from 1.5.2008 till the date of passing of the order. It appears after hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction and possession under the provisions of Section 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent had also sought for a direction for inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to the mesne profit and damages. The respondent had pleaded that the rent of the suit premises was Rs. 5,000/- per month and it was the case of the petitioner that the rent was Rs. 500/- per month. However, during the cross-examination of the petitioner, he admitted that the 2 monthly rent payable to the respondent was Rs. 5,000/-. After the petitioner admitted the aforesaid fact, the respondent filed an application under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent from 1.7.2000 onward. The trial court, on an appreciation of the admission of the petitioner in his cross-examination, directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from 1.5.2008 till the date of the order. While holding so, the trial court also considered the admission of the petitioner that he was in arrears of rent since 1.5.2008. In view of the said admission, it appears that the trial court did not commit any error in directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from 1.5.2008 onwards. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the trial court had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent on an application under order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as the suit was not filed for grant of arrears of rent, is liable to be rejected in view of the clear provisions of Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure which empower the court to direct the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent in the court even in a suit where the arrears of rent or licence fee is not claimed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount directed to be paid by the trial court was time barred claim is also ill-founded and is liable to be rejected. 3 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to deposit the amount before the trial court, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the amount is substantial. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that in case time is granted, this court may not grant time beyond 15th of June, 2011. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the amount on or before 15th of June, 2011. In case the amount is not so deposited before the trial court, the court shall proceed further in accordance with the provisions of Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. JUDGE Hirekhan