ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4822 OF 1991 PETITION NO. 4822 OF 1991 PETITION NO. 4822 OF 1991 Gurumukh Singh Havelasingh Rawal ...Petitioner Vs. Jasodabai W/o Bhau Patil ...Respondent. Mr.V.S.Gokhale for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st November, 2008. : 21st November, 2008. : 21st November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner- Original Defendant has challenged the concurrent finding of facts as both the Courts after considering the material on record, held that the tenant is defaulted in payment of agreed rent and also the rent as directed by the Court to be paid regularly, on application filed by him for fixing the rent. 2. The requirement of the law that tenant should pay agreed monthly rent regularly. In the present case admittedly, the Petitioner was irregular in payment. Therefore, demand notice was sent as arrears was beyond 6 months though the appellate court has passed an order on the application filed by the Petitioner ( 2 ) for fixing standard rent, still not paid the rent thereafter also. The payment made in lumpsum that not regular as agreed and even as ordered, that is sufficient to consider the case of landlord as contemplated under Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Once there is a clear finding that the Petitioner tenant is habitual defaulter and has not willing and never makes readiness to deposit the amount, I see the case is clearly made out for eviction in this provision. 3. In this background, I see there is no reason to interfere with the reasoned order. There is no perversity. The order is well within the framework of law and record. The Petition, is therefore dismissed. No costs. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is praying to stay the effect and operation of this judgment. As the matter is pending since 1991 and he is in possession of the property, I am inclined to stay the effect and operation of this Judgment for 2 months. The Petitioner not to create any third party right or interest in the suit property till the next date. ( 3 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)