1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 118/2010 (ISHWAR LAXMANRAO RUKAR VS. SATYANARAYAN B. AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. R.D.Raskar,, Adv. For petitioner. Mr. J.B.Kasat, Advocate, for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2010. Heard. Perusal of Paragraph 30 of the Judgment delivered in R.C.A. No. 192/2006 by District Judge-2, Amravati, clearly shows non compliance of the provisions of Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there was no express prayer for interest at 15% in plaint and the petitioner has diligently continued to deposit standard rent as determined without fail. It is contended that inadvertent failure to pay interest at 15% cannot be used to dispossess the petitioner. Advocate Kasat contends that omission is not inadvertent as provisions of law are very clear and the falur of petitioner to comply with it has come on record. The findings reached by Appellate Court in paragraph 30 are not shown to be either erroneous or perverse. 2 Hence, no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit.