: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.391 OF 2009 Vithal Ramchandra Otawkar & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Raj Vatsa & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. M/s. Joy Legal Consultants for the Applicants. Mr. Vivek Kantawala i/b. Mr. V.K. Sharma for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicants have approached this Court contending that the orders passed by both the Courts below directing them to vacate the suit premises are incorrect and ought to be set aside. According to the applicants, the decree of the trial Court on the ground of non payment of rent and on the ground of carrying out permanent alterations must be set aside since the findings are contrary to the evidence on record. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the applicants have merely affixed iron grills : 2 : to the balcony in order to have security for the flat and that does not amount to permanent alterations. Even assuming this submission to be correct, the decree has also been passed on the ground of default in payment of rent. 3. Both the Courts below have held that after the demand notice was issued for payment of rent, the applicants did not comply with the same and, instead, sent a reply contending that they were not expected to pay rent to the respondents since they were nominal members of the Society. It is contended that in view of they being nominal members of the Society, the applicants had paid all the maintenance charges, taxes and outgoings etc. in respect of the suit premises to the Society and this fact should have been considered by the Court while deciding the issue of default. 4. Both the Courts below have rightly, in my opinion, held that since there was no compliance of the provisions of Sections 12(2) and 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates : 3 : (Control) Act, 1947, the decree on the ground of default must be executed. Besides, both the Courts below have found that no interest has been paid with respect to the deposit made by the applicants in Court, subsequent to the order passed in the interim notice moved by the respondents. 5. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by both the Courts below. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. 6. Mr. Godbole appearing for the applicants seeks one year’s time to vacate the suit premises. 7. The learned Advocate for the respondents has no objection if this period is granted to the applicants. Accordingly, the decree shall not be executed for a period of one year from today on the usual undertaking being given by the applicants and all the adults residing in the suit premises to this Court within a period of three weeks from today. .......