1 CRA No.530/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.530 of 2010 Madhukar Ramchandra Jadhav ... Applicant versus (i) Smt.Krishna Vesta Garasia (ii)Shri Bhiva Ramchandra Yadav ... Respondents ... Mr. K.K. Pande for the appellant Mr.Amit H. Yadav for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 17th January 2011. P.C. 1. This revision application is filed by the applicant tenant against whom a decree for possession has been passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court inter alia on the ground of default i.e. non payment of rent for more than six months. 2. By a notice dated 25 November 1998, the respondent demanded arrears of rent from July 1976 to October 198 from the revision applicant. Receipt of the notice is admitted. Despite receipt of the notice, the arrears of the rent were not paid. 2 CRA No.530/10 3. Learned counsel for the revision applicant submitted that the rent has been deposited in the trial court during the pendency of the suit and therefore, decree could not have been passed. Under section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act, the tenant was required to pay rent within one month of the receipt of the notice. That was not paid. No application for standard rent was filed within a period of one month. Courts below therefore committed no error in passing of a decree for possession. Two courts below also have concurrently held that the revision applicant tenant had acquired suitable residential premises elsewhere. This concurrent finding is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in exercise of a revisional jurisdiction. 4. Relying upon a decision of this Court(rendered by me) in Shashikant Yeshwant Limaye & Anr Vs. Chintaman Vinayak Kolhatkar, 2010(5) Mh.L.J 527, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the suit filed after 12 years of tenant falling in arrears was barred by limitation and not maintainable. Non payment of rent for other 6 months gives rise to a cause of action. At the most, arrears of rent beyond three years may not be recoverable but the suit for possession on the ground of non payment of rent for more than 12 years would not be barred by limitation per se and the decision cited has no application to the facts of the present case. There is no merit in the revision applicant which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)