1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.97 OF 2010 Jaffer Bhoy Kenu .... Applicant Vs. Dhirajlal P. Jaradi & Anr. .... Respondents Ms A.R.S. Baxi for the Applicant. Shri G.S. Bhat for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 08, 2010 P.C: 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes and the Appellate Bench of the said Court whereby the Courts have held that the applicant is liable to be evicted from the premises which have been leased out to him, on the ground that he had committed default in payment of rent. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The rent of the premises was initially Rs.91/- per month. There was a repair cess which was quantified at Rs.33.65 per months. Even the applicant had got this confirmed from the Municipal Corporation. Thus, the rent, inclusive of cess payable per 2 month would come to Rs.125/-. Instead, the applicant went on offering rent at the rate of Rs.91/-. Even before the landlord issued a demand notice, the applicant had sent money orders and demand drafts calculating the rent at the rate of Rs.91/- per month. Even after the landlord issued a demand notice, the tenant did not pay the rent at the rate of Rs.125/- per month, as demanded, and therefore, incurred ejectment. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that cess would normally be payable annually and therefore unless the landlord shows that the amount was to be broken up, and to be tagged to the monthly rent, the landlord would not be entitled to claim the amount along with the rent. This contention has to be rejected because even according to the applicant the information which he had obtained from the Municipal Corporation showed that the cess was to be at rate of Rs.33.65 per month. In view of this, it cannot be said that the landlord had erred in refusing to receive the money orders or the demand drafts tendering the rent at a lower rate, or that such refusal exonerated the applicants of the liability to pay the rent, or that because of such refusal, 3 the tenants would not incur ejectment since rent would not be in arrears for a period of six months. Since both the Courts below have rightly held that the tenant failed to pay the rent which was in arrears for more than six months, there is no question of interference with the concurrent findings in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision is, therefore, rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant would like to carry the matter forward and therefore seeks eight weeks time. The decree shall not be put to execution for a period of four weeks on the applicants furnishing within a period of one week usual undertaking signed by all the adult members of the applicant s family. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)