1cra339-09F.sxw 1 spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 339 OF 2009 Shri Namdev Maruti Umbarkar & Ors. ....Applicants. Vs. Smt.Manjuladevi Chunilal Oza & Ors. . ....Respondents --- Mr. Dani i/by Sean Wassoodew for the Applicants. Mr. P.S. Dani i/by Sean Wasoodew for the Applicants. Mr. S.K. Jain i/by S.K. Jain and Associates for Respondent No.1. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for Respondent Nos. 2A and 2B. --- CORAM:- G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATED :- 10TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of a decree for eviction passed in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 648/1294/1996 which was filed on the ground of default. The notice of demand was issued on 3rd April, 1996. Suit was filed only against Respondent No. 2 herein. By filing Misc. Notice No. 5183 of 1993, the Applicants sought their impleadment. The said notice was allowed on 24th February, 2000. The Applicants thereafter filed an application seeking permission to deposit the rent. Issues were 1cra339-09F.sxw 2 framed on 21st September, 2001. Thereafter, application for deposit of rent was allowed on 10th October, 2001, albeit, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and the rent was deposited on 22nd October, 2001. 2 Mr. Dani has placed on record photocopies of the Interim Notice No. 5183/ 1999, the Reply to that notice and the Order passed by the Trial Court. The said notice contained two prayers one for impleadment of the Applicants as party Defendants and the other for payment of arrears of rent. By order dated 24.2.2000, the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court allowed impleadment but the prayer for deposit of rent was rejected. Thereafter, issues were framed on 21.9.2001. The Trial Court thereafter passed scrutiny order on 10.10.2001 and the Applicants were directed to deposit the arrears of rent. 3 In view of this peculiar circumstances, Mr. Dani submitted that the Trial Court had only rejected the prayer of deposit of rent even prior to the framing of the issue by its order dated 24.2.2000 and that the subsequent order dated 10.10.2001 which was passed after the framing of issues must be construed to be an order which fixed "other date" as contemplated by section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. Though there is merit in this submission but the fact remains that thereafter between the period of 1cra339-09F.sxw 3 2002-2006, the Applicant did not deposit the rent regularly and this finding of fact is recorded by the Trial Court in paragraph 26 of its Judgment as also the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court in paragraph 16 of the Judgment have not been shown to be incorrect or perverse. Thus the second requirement of granting relief against forfeiture, namely, regular deposit till the disposal of suit has not been complied with by the Applicants. There is also no compliance regarding payment of interest and cost of the suit. In view of this, the Trial Court and the Appellate Bench were justified in passing a decree for eviction on the ground of default and no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the said Courts. 4 Hence, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed summarily. On the oral request of the Advocate for the Applicants it is directed that the execution of the Decree for possession passed in RAE & R. Suit No. 648/1294/1996 which has been confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dated 24.4.2009 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No. 593/2006 shall remain stayed for 12 weeks subject to the condition that the Applicants will not part with the possession or create any third party right and interest of whatsoever nature in the suit premises . [G. S. GODBOLE, J.]