spb/- 1 cra986-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 986 OF 2010 Shaikh Noor Mohamed ... Applicant. V/s. Smt. Mathurabai Pandurang Turbhekar & Anr. ... Respondents. --- Ms. Kalpana Kanhere for the Applicant. Mr. Sandeep Kumbhar with S. Bhagwat for the Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1 This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and order for eviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. 2 The revision applicant was in arrears of rent. He did not pay the rent in spite of service of notice of demand. The respondents, therefore, filed a suit for eviction. In the suit for eviction, the revision applicant made an application on 3rd September, 2003 for permission to deposit arrears of rent as also for permission to deposit future rent in the court regularly. By an order dated 6th February, 2003 the application was allowed and the trial court directed the revision applicant to deposit Rs. spb/- 2 cra986-10.sxw 8,550/- being the arrears of rent due and payable from April, 1991 to January, 2003 at the monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and further directed the revision applicant to deposit the future rent regularly at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month on or before 10th day of every British Calender month. 3 Under a praecipe dated 6th January, 2011 the revision applicant has filed in this court a compilation containing a copy of his application dated 3rd February, 2003, the Court’s order dated 6th February, 2003 and a copy of the Nazar’s report about the deposits made by the applicant in the trial court. The Nazar’s report shows that only an amount of Rs. 7848/- was deposited by the revision applicant in the trial court on 4th March, 2003. This was not a compliance of the order dated 6th February, 2003 inasmuch as the amount deposited was short by Rs. 702/- and further the amount was also not deposited within one month but after one month and twenty- eight days from the date of the order. Following amounts were deposited by the applicant in the trial court. i) Rs.150/- on 07.04.2003; ii) Rs.100/- on 08.07.2003; iii) Rs.100/- on 10.09.2003; iv) Rs. 100/- on 05.11.2003; v) Rs. 100/- on 08.01.2004 vi) Rs.150/- on 25.02.2004. spb/- 3 cra986-10.sxw Thus upto 25th February, 2004 the revision applicant deposited only Rs. 8548/- in all and did not comply with the order of deposit of Rs.8550/- for more than 13 months. 4 After 25th February, 2004 the revision applicant stopped depositing monthly rent and deposited a sum of Rs.3050/- only on 4th May, 2009 and Rs.300/- on 7th November, 2009. Thus for five years the revision applicant did not make any deposit and did not comply with the directions to deposit Rs.50/- per month towards rent. 5 In the circumstances, the decree for eviction passed on the ground of default cannot be faulted with. The revision application is rejected summarily. 6 The learned counsel for the applicant prays for some time to vacate the suit premises. The learned counsel for the respondents has strong objection for granting any time. In the interest of justice, the revision applicant is granted three months time to vacate the suit premises subject to his filing an undertaking in this court in the usual form within two weeks. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]