1 CRA 1007/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1007 OF 2000 Shri Shivaji Pargonda Hulyalkar .... Applicant Pune (Ori. opponent) Vs. Shri Anandrao Chandroji Patil .... Respondents (deceased), thru heirs ’ (Ori. petitioner) Sau Prabhavati Anandrao Patil & Ors. Mr. Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Amit Borkar, Advocate for respondents. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 29th September, 2010 P.C. 1. This Revision Application challenges the judgment and order dated 18th July 2000 passed by the competent authority, Pune, directing the revision applicant inter alia to vacate the suit premises. 2. Application No.58 of 1998 was filed by the respondent under provisions of the The Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 for eviction of the revision applicant on the ground of expiry of the leave and license agreement by efflux of time. The revision applicant appeared in the proceedings and was granted leave to defend. He filed his written statement on the basis of which the issues were framed. However, at the time of actual 2 CRA 1007/2000 hearing of the application, he was not present and the application came to be allowed against him. 3. Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the revision applicant submits that it can be seen from the record that the matter before the Competent Authority was adjourned from time to time till 12th July 1999. Thereafter until 6th May 2000, the matter was not on the board because the post of Competent Authority was lying vacant. During the period of 12th July 1999 till 6th May 2000, no dates were given to the parties. After Mr. R.B. Rathod resumed charge of the post of Competent Authority, no notice of the hearing of the application was served upon the revision applicant. As per the Roznama, the application was taken on board either on 4th or on 6th May 2000. On that day, the respondent was present with his counsel, but the revision applicant was absent. The matter was then adjourned to 15th May 2000 for final hearing. But prior to the adjourned date, the matter was suddenly taken on board on 9th May 1999 and adjourned to 11th May 1999. The Roznama of the adjourned date i.e. 11th May 1999 reads as follows : Applicant present along with Advocate Shri Mane. Opponent “ absent. His Advocate absent. I therefore pass the following order:- The Application is allowed. Order and Judgment separately dictated.” Surprisingly the matter was once again taken on the board on 16th May 2000 3 CRA 1007/2000 and on that day, evidence of the respondent was recorded. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for exparte orders to 19th May 2000. But it did not appear on the board until 18th July 2000. The Roznama of 18th July 2000, which is the last Roznama, reads as follows: In view of the Roznama dated 16.5.2000 “ order and judgment passed Thus as per the record, after the application was allowed and the order and judgment separately dictated on 11th May 2000, it was taken up for hearing again and evidence recorded thereon on 16th May 2000 and a second time judgment and order passed on 18th July 2000. Mr. Warunjikar submits that in these set of circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. It is required to be set aside and the revision applicant granted an opportunity of hearing before the competent authority. 4. Mr. Amit Borkar, the learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the above facts of the case. He, however refers to the conduct of the revision applicant to submit that he is not entitled to be heard by this Court. Perusal of the Roznama of the present proceedings shows that on three occasions there had been orders passed by this court directing the revision applicant to deposit in this Court compensation for occupation of the licensed premises, with a further direction to continue to deposit damages at the rate of Rs.6,000/- p.m. until further orders. On the condition of deposit of 4 CRA 1007/2000 compensation, ad-interim orders of stay of the execution had been passed. The first order is dated 18th September 2000. The revision applicant did not comply with the same. As a consequence, by the order dated 8th November 2000, ad-interim order of stay was vacated. The revision application thereafter came to be dismissed for default on 21st February 2008 and was restored to file on 7th March 2008 on payment of costs. Then the revision applicant filed second application being Civil Application No.7937 of 2000 for stay of the proceedings. On 21st November 2000, counsel appearing for the revision applicant made a statement that the revision applicant is ready to pay amount of Rs.1,66,000/- to the respondent within a period of one week from that date. The statement came to be accepted by the court and in view of the statement, the Civil Application was granted staying the execution of the proceedings. The revision applicant once again committed default in making the payment resulting into recall of the order dated 21st November 2000 by the order dated 19th April 2001. Thereafter in the year 2001, another Civil Application for stay of the impugned order was filed by the revision applicant. The application was allowed on 7th May 2001 on condition that the revision applicant deposits a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- in the court on or before 10th May 2001. In the event of default of deposit, the stay was to automatically stand vacated. The revision applicant did not deposit the amount and the order of stay came to be vacated. Mr. Borkar submits that the above conduct of 5 CRA 1007/2000 repeated noncompliance of the directions given by this Court dis-entitles the revision applicant of any hearing in the present proceedings. According to the respondent, the amount of arrears of compensation as of today is of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Taking overall view of the matter, in my opinion, following order will serve the ends of justice. O R D E R 1. The Civil Revision Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) on condition that the revision applicant pays a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent within a period of one week from today and he shall pay the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks thereafter. In the event, the revision applicant fails to pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within the time granted, the revision application will stand dismissed without any further reference to the court. If the revision applicant commits default in respect of the second instalment, the competent authority will be at liberty to take the default into consideration and pass appropriate orders in the Civil Application No.58 of 1998. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota,J) (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota,J)