( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2007 Gagandas s/o. Pritamdas Shindi .. Applicant Versus Bansilal Mulchand Agrawal (deceased) .. Respondent through L.R. Shri S.V. Adwant, Advocate for the applicant. Shri L.V. Sangeet, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 06.10.2009 P.C. :- 1. This Civil Revision Application is filed by original tenant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal, in Regular Civil Suit No. 130 of 1987, decided on 04.12.2000, whereby the decree for eviction and arrears of rent was passed against present revision applicant. Said judgment and decree is further confirmed by the District Judge, Jalgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2001 decided on 21.07.2008. ( 2 ) 2. Briefly stated, the respondent is land-lord. He filed suit for possession and arrears of rent under Section 12 (3) (a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. According to the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant failed to pay rent of Rs.12/- per month from 01.11.1982 to 31.05.1986 and therefore he issued notice on 19.06.1986. Inspite of service of notice, arrears of rent were not paid within one month nor any application for fixation of standard rent was filed. Hence, suit for possession and arrears of rent was filed. The defendant appeared and filed written statement at Exh.25. According to him he had paid rent till 30.04.1987 and he was not defaulter. He also had denied that he had received any notice as required by law. According to the defendant inspite of payment of rent from 01.01.1982 to 30.04.1987, the landlord had failed to pass receipt and therefore he demanded compensatory costs of Rs. 3000/-. 3. Both Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the defendant was defaulter. He had not paid any rent. Notice was duly served on him. In spite of that neither he ( 3 ) complied with the demand of payment of rent and arrears nor he filed application for standard rent. Therefore, both the Courts below concurrently gave findings of fact and ultimately passed the decrees. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant Shri S.V. Adwant argued before this Court that receipt Exh.50, which is registered post acknowledgment, does not bear any signature of defendant/appellant. He asked this Court to compare signatures on written statement, Vakalatnama and other documents. This is revision petition. Already two Courts which are fact finding Courts have held against him. So far as arrears of rent is concerned, initially plaintiff/respondent led his evidence. The suit was decreed and thereafter the Appellate Court i.e. District Court remanded the matter and thereafter the defendant/appellant led evidence. The defendant examined himself and his son to prove that he was not in arrears of rent. In para 8, the Trial Court discussed the evidence. The plaintiff has led evidence to show that the defendant has not paid rent from 01.11.1982 to 31.05.1986. The plaintiff has produced last receipt Exh.52 for the period from 01.11.1981 to 30.10.1982 ( 4 ) and he has identified signature of his Munim and also of the defendant on receipt Exh.52. If we consider receipt Exh.52, it is clear that the defendant was not making same signature everywhere. Signature at Exh.52 appears to be different from the one which is appearing on the written statement. The Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff failed to produce his copy of receipt Exh.52. The son of the plaintiff, when asked in the cross-examination, was not able to state to whom rent was paid on behalf of the plaintiff during the period from 1982 to 1987. So, interested words of son of the defendant are not found to be sufficient. It is also noted that for the first time application Exh.67 was given and rent was tendered for the period from 01.11.1982 to 30.09.2000 and same was deposited in the Court on 27.09.2000. So, it is not that even pending the suit on the first date of hearing, amount of arrears of rent was tendered and paid in the Court and regularly thereafter rent was deposited. This conduct of defendant in not appearing at the time of hearing before remand and not leading evidence, and subsequently not paying rent for years together pending the suit speaks volume. 5. After giving anxious thought to the arguments and ( 5 ) after going through the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I hold that this is not a case where any interference, with the decree passed by the Trial Court and as confirmed by the District Court, is required. Hence, this Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cra137.07