1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3669 OF 2010. Syed Sabirali Nazzar Ali -: VERSUS :- Arun Gajanan Dhale Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 22, 2010. Heard Shri P.A. Markandeywar, learned Counsel for Petitioner. This Court has issued notice for final disposal, however, the respondent has chosen not to appear though served. On earlier occasion time was given to petitioner to place before this Court his calculations to show that the amount of rent has been paid and provisions of Section 15[3] of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act has been complied with. Attention has been invited to Pursis filed vide stamp no. 17101/2010 on 19.11.2010. Perusal of the Pursis reveals that it does not take care of rent amount/arrears from 01.07.2004 till 25.10.2004 or interest upon it. 2 Learned Counsel for petitioner argues that word “then due” used in Section 15[3] contemplate the rent amount due on the date of institution of the suit. This argument cannot be accepted and in any case the amount due till the date of deposit ought to have been cleared and it is apparent here that suit claim i.e. the rent arrears till 30.05.2004 and interest on that amount calculated till the date of deposit has been paid. I, therefore, find that there is no compliance with the provisions of Section 15 by the petitioner/tenant. No case is made out warranting interference in the impugned order. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.