1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 117/2008 (Smt. Jitatai w/o Revaknath Salve & anr. Vs. Prabhakar s/o Bhumaji Dudhe) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.R. Patil, Adv. for the applicants. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 9 th JANUARY, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the revision applicants. By this revision application, the applicants seek to challenge the judgment passed by the 2nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, on 5th March, 2007, in Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2005 as also the judgment passed by the 10th District Judge, Nagpur, on 26/8/2008, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 204/2007, confirming the judgment passed by the Small Causes Court. The revision applicants are the tenants residing in the house bearing House No. 4 situated on Koradi Road, Nagpur. Out of the said house, the revision applicants were let out two rooms on monthly rent of Rs. 1800/- with effect from 1/10/2001. It is the case of the respondent/ landlord that the revision applicants paid the rent to 2 the landlord for the months of October, 2001 to November, 2001 only and thereafter, neglected to pay the rent to the respondents. The landlord, therefore, issued a notice of recovery of the arrears of rent and for determination of the tenancy, possession and damages. It was stated in the notice that the applicants had failed to pay arrears of rent with effect from 1/12/2001 to 30/9/2004 amounting to Rs. 61,200/-. In spite of the notice, since the rent was not paid within a period of three months, a suit was instituted. In spite of the intimation given by the postal authority on 4/10/2004, the revision applicants avoided to receive notice and since this amounted to a deemed service of notice on the revision applicants, a suit was instituted. The revision applicants filed their written statement and resisted the suit of the respondent. They denied the receipt of the notice and further denied that they were in arrears of rent from 2001 to 2004. It was pleaded that there was no written agreement or tenancy between the parties. It was pleaded by the defendant that the addressee's name mentioned on the notice was not that of the revision applicants and, therefore, they paid no heed to the intimation by the Post Office. It was pleaded that the defendants were not present in the house when 3 the notice was tried to be served on them. It was lastly pleaded by them that they had paid an amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the landlord as an advance amount. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the revision applicants were in arrears of rent with effect from 1/12/2001 to 31/12/2004. Even after the institution of the suit, the revision applicants failed to deposit the arrears of rent in the Court within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Court observed that the revision applicants did not deposit the rent even during the pendency of the suit in spite of the order passed by the Court to do so. The Court held that there was nothing on record to prove that the revision applicants had deposited Rs. 75,000/- with the respondent, as advance. The Court held that the notice issued by the landlord was refused by the revision applicants and the envelope was returned with the endorsement “not claimed”. In spite of the intimation by the Post Office, the revision applicants had failed to receive the registered notice from the Post Office. The Court observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the evidence on record, it was clear that the revision applicants had avoided to accept the envelope and hence it could 4 be safely concluded that the notice contemplated under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was duly served on the revision applicants by the respondent. The Court observed that the address on the notice of summons and on the notice issued under Section 15 of the Act of 1999, was the same. Since the revision applicants had not deposited a single pie in the Court towards the arrears of rent during the pendency of the suit, the trial Court granted a decree for eviction against the revision applicants. The judgment passed by the Small Causes Court was confirmed by the District Judge in the appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 204/2007. No fault can be found with the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts against the revision applicants. It also cannot be said that the findings recorded by both the Courts are perverse. In the result, the civil revision application fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP