1 1.cra529.08 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 529 OF 2008 Kamal Pandurang Shivgan & ors. ....Applicants. Vs. Shri Umakant Nansaheb Shinde. ....Respondent Mr. P.J. Thorat, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. P.J. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- OCTOBER 12, 2011 P.C. 1. In a Suit for eviction filed on 16/12/1987 under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, the Learned II Joint C.J.J.D., Satara dismissed the Suit on 27/4/1995. R.C. Appeal No. 362 of 1995 was filed by the original Plaintiff and by impugned Judgment and Decree on 14/7/2008 the learned District Judge, Satara has allowed that Appeal and a Decree for eviction is passed on the grounds contained in Section 13(1)(b), 13(1)(g) and 12(3) (b) of the Bombay Rent act. I have heard Mr. Thorat, Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent. In so far as the 2 1.cra529.08 ground of default is concerned though the tenants had the benefit of the provisions of Section 12(3) after amendment i.e. 1/10/1987, from the perusal of the certified copy of chart filed below Exh. 91, correctness of which is not disputed before me, it is clear that the tenants did not comply with the requirement for grant of relief against forfeiture in as much as on the first day of hearing of the Suit when the issues were framed on 11/8/1988, the default for the month of February, 1987 had remained to be cured and in any case there is nothing to indicate that interest was deposited. Mr. Thorat submitted that since amount was being deposited pursuant to Order passed in Misc. Application No. 116 of 1985 which was an application for fixing standard rent, there was no obligation and requirement for payment of interest under sub-section 3 of section 12. I do not find any merit in this submission for the simple reason that the relief against forfeiture can be granted only if conditions of sub-section 3 are strictly complied with. 2. Apart from this even on the other grounds mainly, 13(1)(b), 13(1) (g), the Learned Judge of the Appellate Court has taken a possible view after independent appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and there is no perversity in the said findings recorded by the 3 1.cra529.08 learned District Judge. Hence there is no error of jurisdiction so as to warrant interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Civil Revision Application is therefore, rejected. 3. At this stage, on the oral application of Mr. Thorat, Advocate for Applicants, it is directed that despite dismissal of the Civil Revision Application, the Decree for possession shall remain stayed for a period of 3 months from today to enable the Applicants to approach the Apex Court. This will be however, subject to the condition that the Applicants will not part with possession or create any third party rights or interest in respect of the Suit premises and undertaking to that effect shall be filed by the Applicants and all other adult members of the family of the Applicants on or before 11/11/2011. Till such undertaking is filed injunction shall operate against the Applicants from parting with possession and/or creating any third party right or interest. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)