1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 1995 Bhimrao Dada Jadhav ...Petitioner vs. Shrimati Maktabai Kashinath (since deceased by legal representative) ...Respondent Mr.Tejpal S. Ingale for the petitioner None for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 17, 2010 JUDGMENT : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the defendant-tenant and the original respondent is the plaintiff-landlady. The respondent died during the pendency of the petition and her legal representative has been brought on record. The decree has been passed by the trial Court against the petitioner under section 12 (3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. the decree has been confirmed in the Appeal. 2 According to the case of the respondent-landlady, a notice of demand was issued on 8th December 1983 to the petitioner calling upon him to pay arrears of rent for the period between November 1974 to April 1975 as well as from April 1982 to November 1983. The said notice was duly served to the petitioner on 12th December 1983. However, the petitioner neither complied with the said notice nor replied to the said notice. The demand of rent was made at Rs.22/- per month. A fresh notice dated 20th November 1984 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner calling upon him to pay arrears of Rs.836/-. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 21st 2 December 1984. The petitioner did not comply with the said notice. According to the respondent, the standard rent was already fixed at Rs.22/- per month. 3 The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing the written statement. It is pointed out in the written statement that from the year 1980, the petitioner was seriously ill. It is pointed out that on 4th March 1985 money order in the sum of Rs.836/- was sent by him to the petitioner and in fact the application for fixation of standard rent being Misc. Application no.43 of 1985 was filed in which a sum of Rs.924/- has been deposited on 8th April 1985. It was pointed out by the petitioner that the business conducted him in the suit shop premises was his only source of livelihood. As stated earlier, there are concurrent decrees passed by the Courts below on the ground under section 12(3)(a) of the said Act of 1947. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had shown readiness and willingness to pay the rent. He pointed out that the reasons were assigned by the petitioner as to why he could not comply with the demand notice. He submitted that the petitioner has pointed out that from the year 1980 he was ill. He submitted that the petitioner is a patient of epilepsy. 5 I have considered the submissions. There is no dispute that on the date on which notice of demand dated 8th December 1983 issued by the respondent was served to the petitioner, he was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months. Same is the case with the notice dated 20th November 1984. Admittedly, the petitioner did not comply with both the notices within a period of one month from the date on which the same is received by him. The petitioner filed an application for standard rent on 3 11th March 1985. As the said application was not filed within one month after the date of service of notice of demand, the said application will not save the petitioner from the decree of eviction. In view of settled position of law, the Courts below had no option but to pass the decree of eviction. Accordingly, the decree has been passed. There is absolutely no error in the decree passed by the Courts below. 6 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering from Epilepsy and the suit shop premises is the only source of livelihood to the petitioner. He submitted that longer time to vacate be granted. The suit is of the year 1985 and the writ petition is of the year 1995. Hence, prayer for grant of longer time to vacate cannot be acceded to. Time to vacate deserves to be granted till 31st December 2010 to the petitioner subject to condition that all adult members of his family shall file usual undertaking to vacate the suit property. The undertaking shall be filed within six weeks from today. 7 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ii)Decree for possession shall not be executed till 31st December 2010 subject to petitioner and all his adult family members filing usual undertaking in this Court within a period of six weeks from today. iii)If undertaking is not filed within stipulated period of six weeks from today, the decree will become forthwith executable. JUDGE 4 There has to be some semblance of right.