1 wp3799-98 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3799 OF 1998 Ramesh Shamrao Chinachane .. Petitioner V/s. Krishnabai S. Paiyawal & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. S. A. Sawant for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that his instructing advocate has informed him that the building in which the suit premises is situated has been demolished. However, till today he has no instructions from the petitioner. Therefore, I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on merits. 2. The first respondent is the original plaintiff. The petitioner is the original first defendant and the second and third respondents are the defendant Nos.2 and 3. 3. According to the case of the first respondent, the monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs.140/-. The petitioner was in arrear of rent from 1st January, 1986 to 31st December, 1990. Notice dated 17th January, 1991 demanding the arrears was issued 2 wp3799-98 by the first respondent which was served to the petitioner and the petitioner did not comply with the said notice. A suit of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) was filed by the first respondent. The trial Court passed a decree only on the ground of arrears which was confirmed by the Appellate Court in an Appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had in fact sent money orders to the first respondent as a first respondent had declined to issue rent receipts in respect of the rent paid earlier. He submitted that the money orders were not accepted and the same were refused. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was not in arrears. He submitted that the entire amount of arrears was deposited on or before the first date of hearing and, therefore, the decree for eviction could not have been passed. 5. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner was in arrears from 1st June, 1986 onwards. While dealing with the submission that money orders were sent from the period from November 1986 to January, 1987, the trial Court has held that this itself shows that the petitioner was in arrears. As far as the allegation regarding arrears of rent is concerned, the finding regarding the arrears of rent recorded by both the Courts below is against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the service of notice of demand, the petitioner did not comply with the notice. 6. In view of Section 12(3) of the Said Act as amended by Act No.18 of 1987, in such a case relief against forfeiture could have 3 wp3799-98 been obtained by the tenant provided he had deposited the entire arrears due and payable together with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs of the suit on or before first date of hearing. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below is that the entire arrears and interest amount was not deposited on or before the first date of hearing. 7. Therefore, both the Courts below have proceeded to pass a decree for possession. No interference is called with the concurrent decrees passed by the Courts below. Hence, the writ petition is rejected with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. 8. It is made clear that if there is already an amicable settlement between the parties, the settlement will not be affected by this Judgment. (A.S.OKA, J.)