1 CRA-708.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.708 OF 2009 Nandkishore Lalchand Mehra & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. M/s. Phills Engineering Corporation & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Dandekar i/b Ms A.S. Malvankar for the Applicants. Ms Snehal Gujare h/f Malpathak for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 15, 2010 P.C: The landlords question the concurrent findings of the learned trial Judge, Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench of the said Court whereby the Courts have held that the applicants/landlords failed to prove that the tenants were in arrears of rent and neglected and refused to pay the rent despite service of notice of demand. The tenants claimed that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, in A.O. No.965 of 1995, the tenants were required 2 CRA-708.09 to deposit the rent in the Ghatkopar Branch of Indian Overseas Bank which they had been doing and which is duly proved by examining one Gurunathan who was working in the said Branch. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the receipts which had been issued by the said Ghatkopar Branch were marked as Articles Y-1 to Y-25 and were not marked as exhibits. He submits that, firstly, the Debts Recovery Tribunal would have no business to pass any such order directing the tenants to deposit rent in the Indian Overseas Bank at the Ghatkopar Branch and, secondly, the tenants must prove that the rent has actually been deposited in pursuance of the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. These objections are ticklish. First, if the landlords show that they were aggrieved by the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and if it affected them, they could have questioned that order by appropriate proceedings. Since the order is passed by a competent Court, the defendants cannot be faulted for obeying that order. As for the proof of demand made by the defendants, the defendants have examined Gurunathan who has stated that cheques have been received from the tenants. Thus, there is no question of the tenants having defaulted in payment of rent or 3 CRA-708.09 having wilfully neglected to respond to the notice of demand sent by the applicants. In view of this, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court and the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court is erroneous so as to call for an interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision application is, therefore, rejected. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)