1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 238/2011 (Ganpat R. Nandeshwar VERSUS Devkumar Bhojraj Sukhija) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri L.A. Mohta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M. Anilkumar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 8 , 2011 . Heard. Both the Courts have concurrently held and rightly so that the respondent landlord was entitled to recover the possession of the suit property under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as the petitioner-tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent within three months from the date of receipt of the notice from the landlord under Section 15 of the Act of 1999 and had also failed to deposit the same before the trial Court within a period of three months from the receipt of the summons. It appears that there was a dispute about the quantum of the rent between the landlord and the tenant and it was the case of the tenant- petitioner that the monthly rent was Rs.125/-. The Courts held that even assuming or on holding that the monthly rent was Rs.125/-, the petitioner-tenant was in arrears of rent. The tenant had failed to deposit the rent in spite of receipt of the notice under Section 15 of the Act of 1999 and had also failed to deposit the admitted rent before the trial Court 2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the summons. The judgments reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. 436 (Ramchandra Appaji Manjage since deceased by L.Rs. Versus Mahavir Gajanan Mug), 2010(1) All M R 39 (M/s New laxmi Cycle Co. Versus Jagdishchandra s/o Amrutlal Vakharia) and an unreported judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2011 in Writ Petition No.4526/1991 (Smt. Hanjabi Ratanhand Solanki & others Versus Hansraj Mishrimal Jain Since deceased through his legal heirs), cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as the petitioner-tenant had failed to deposit even the admitted rent before the trial Court as required under the provisions of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE