1 (WP 4036 of 2002) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4036 OF 2002 Smt.Indubai Ganpat Morbale ...Petitioner Vs. Vasant Dattu Patil ...Respondent ----- Mr.N.J. Patil for Petitioner Mr.Sudhir Hardikar for Respondent ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 20th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondent is the original Defendant ( for the sake of convenience, the parties shall bed referred to as “the Plaintiff and the Defendant”). 3. The Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the Defendant on various grounds under the Rent Act. The Trial Court, however, passed an order of eviction only on the ground that the Defendant was a defaulter and, therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to get a decree on the ground that the Defendant was in arrears of rent and he had not deposited the rent within one month from the date of service of the notice. The said judgment and order was set aside by the Lower Appellate Court in Appeal. Being 2 (WP 4036 of 2002) aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is submitted that the Defendant was in arrears of rent from 1st April, 1982 to 30th November, 1991. The demand notice dated 1st November, 1991 was issued by the landlord ad it was duly served on the Defendant- Tenant. The suit was filed on 12th December, 1991. It was submitted that issues were framed on 3rd February, 1994 and the Defendant-Tenant deposited the arrears on 6th of July, 1994. It was, therefore, submitted that the Defendant had not deposited the amount within one month from the date of service of the demand notice and also had not deposited the amount in the Court on the first date of hearing and, therefore, he was not entitled to get the protection under section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. 5. It is not possible to accept the said contentions. It is an admitted position that though the demand of arrears of rent was made for the period from 1st April, 1982 to 39th November, 1991. The suit was filed on 12th of December, 1991 and, therefore, the period of one one month was not over since the demand was made upto 30th of November, 1991. The Lower Appellate Court, therefore, has rightly held that the demand notice itself 3 (WP 4036 of 2002) was illegal and, therefore, no cause of action had accrued to the Plaintiff to file a suit under section 12(3) (a) of the Bombay Rent Act. No case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Writ Petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)