1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2010 Prakash Manohar Bhasme ... Applicant v/s Mst.Rohini Ramakant Rawal ... Respondent Mr.Sanjeev J. Rairkar for the applicant. Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The application has been filed against the decree of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court and which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. The decree has been passed on the grounds of arrears of rent and causing nuisance and annoyance to the landlady and other tenants. 2. It appears that after the present suit was filed, the applicant moved to this Court as he was aggrieved by certain orders passed in the suit. On 2.11.2004 this Court while 2 deciding the writ petition No.8898 of 2004 directed as follows :- “For all purposes, the date of written statement shall be the date of the first day of hearing within the meaning of Section 12(3) of the said Act. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on 15th December, 2004 at 11.30 a.m. and shall file written statement and take appropriate steps, if so desire, to contest the proceedings.” 3. It appears that the tenant/applicant attempted to make payment of certain amounts to the respondent landlady which, the tenant claims, were not accepted by her. It is submitted on behalf of the tenant that he had complied with the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (in short, “the Bombay Rent Act”) and, therefore, the decree on the ground of arrears of rent ought not to have been passed. 4. This argument, in my opinion, is fallacious. The amounts were expected to be deposited in Court on or before 15.12.2004. This Court had in the earlier writ petition fixed this date as the first day of hearing within the meaning of Section 12(3) of the Act. It appears that some amount has been deposited in Court on 26.10.2005. However, this amount which the applicant claims is the rent for 1998 to 2005, was not deposited within the period stipulated under 3 Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. Besides, there is no material to indicate that the rent was deposited from month to month thereafter in the Court as provided under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court has not committed any error by decreeing the suit. The Appellate Court has rightly confirmed the view of the Trial Court. 5. As regards the ground of conviction, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the tenant had used abusive language and was convicted for the same. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Caltan D’Souza & ors. v/s Miss Jerbai S.C.Dinshaw & ors., reported in A.I.R. 1972 Bom. 117, to submit that a mere proof of conviction for an offence alleged to have committed by the tenant is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act. 6. In my opinion, both the Courts below have committed no error in decreeing the suit on this ground. Even assuming that they committed an error in respect of the decree regarding Section 13(1)(c), in any event, the tenant has rightly been evicted from the suit premises on the ground of being a defaulter in payment of rent. 4 7. Civil revision application dismissed. 8. On the application made by the learned advocate for the applicant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of three months from today. ..... 5