WP. 2312-95 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2312 OF 1995 Smt. Lila Bhagwandas Patel & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Sundarlal @ Suryakant Popat Patni ...Respondent *** Mr. Prasad S. Dani, for the Petitioners. Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JUNE 6, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent. The petitioners are original landlords and respondent is the original tenant. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as the ‘landlord’ and the ‘tenant’. Landlords filed the suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. Against the said judgment and decree, the tenant preferred an appeal. The appeal, however, was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit was dismissed. Mr. Dani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner WP. 2312-95 - 2 - submits that after the demand notice was sent by the landlords dated 9-8-1982, demanding the arrears of rent for a period of nine months, the defendant filed an application for fixation of standard rent within one month and deposited the said amount in the Court. However, thereafter the tenant was not regular in making payment of the standard rent in the Court from time to time and therefore, on that ground, the trial Court had decreed the suit. It is submitted that, however, the appellate Court came to a different conclusion that since the tenant had deposited the standard rent within one month from the date of service of demand notice, cause of action to file the suit did not arise and on that ground appeal was allowed. It is also submitted that the lower appellate court had clearly erred in taking this view, since the said situation would arise only if the tenant pays the amount, as demanded by the landlords, in the demand notice, within one month from the date of service of the notice. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the judgment and order of the trial court as well as the appellate court. In my view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Apart from the fact that the tenant had deposited the interim standard rent fixed by the court within the time prescribed by the court, the appellate court has also taken into WP. 2312-95 - 3 - consideration the additional facts which have come on record. In the present case, appellate court has observed that before sending the demand notice dated 9-8-1982, the landlord had informed the tenant by registered notice dated 8-3-1982 that he had become the landlord of the suit premises and the tenant should pay rent to him/landlord. The notice was received on 19-3-1982 by the tenant. After receipt of this notice, tenant sent a money order vide Exhibit 42 to the landlord on 31-5-1982 for Rs.210/-, and another money order vide Exhibit 43 for Rs.245/-. Both the money orders were refused by the landlord on 1-6-1982 and 15-7-1982. The lower appellate court, under these circumstances, relied on the ratio of the judgment laid down in 1985 Bombay Rent Cases, 60. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, in my view, was justified in holding that the tenant has complied with the statutory obligations of Section 12(1) of the Bombay Rent Act of paying rent regularly to the landlord. The lower appellate court as well as the trial court held that after receipt of the suit notice, within one month, application for fixation of standard rent was filed and amount of Rs. 315/- was deposited as per the orders of the Court. Under these circumstances, therefore, in my view, lower appellate court was justified in coming to the conclusion that tenant was not a defaulter. In view of the reasons given by the lower WP. 2312-95 - 4 - appellate court, in my view, it is not a fit case where this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution should interfere in the said impugned order. Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ V. M. KANADE J.]