1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2007 M/s. Parmar and Kawa ... Applicant (Ord. Defendant) Versus Kamalagan Babubhai Bhatti ... Respondent (Org. Plaintiff) Mr. Anil Anturkar, Advocate, i/b. Mr. Sugandh B.Dehmukh,Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. R.A.Thorat with Ms. Prachi Tatke, Advocates, i/b. Devendra Uda for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. DATE: 5th May, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is the original defendant/tenant in the suit premises and the respondent is the 2 landlady/original plaintiff. The respondent-landlady issued notice on 31.5.1994 to the applicant through an Advocate calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent from 1.6.1984 onwards within one week. Besides that, by the said notice, she terminated the tenancy with effect from the end of the next month after the month in which the notice would be served on the applicant. The applicant failed to make payment and also to vacate the premises. On 9.8.1994, the respondent filed RAE Suit No.1457 of 1994 for eviction on the ground that the applicant was a defaulter in payment of rent. The suit was contested. After hearing the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit and by judgment dated 4.11.2004 directed the defendant/applicant to vacate the premises within four weeks. The said judgment and decree came to be challenged by the present applicant in Appeal No.26 of 2005. That appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 22.12.2006. The defendant challenged the said judgment and decree in the present Revision Application. 3. Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the applicant raised only one point in favour of the applicant. According to him, as per the notice issued on 31.5.1994, the applicant was required to pay rent within one week. According to him, this notice was in contravention of the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of 3 Property Act and Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act,1947 (for short "Bombay Rent Act"). Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act provides that no suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, in case of monthly lease of property, the lease shall be terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by 15 days notice. On careful perusal of the notice, it appears that even though the landlady had required the tenant to pay the arrears of rent within one week, the tenancy was actually terminated with effect from the end of the next month from the month in which the notice would be served. The notice was issued on 31.5.1994 and presumably it must have been served on 1st June, 1994 or thereafter. The tenancy was terminated with effect from the end of the next month i.e. the end of July 1994. The suit was actually filed on 9.8.1994. In view of this, it is clear that a clear notice of more than 15 days was served on the tenant and the suit was filed after expiry of about two months after service of 4 notice. In view of this, the provisions of Section 106 of T.P.Act as well as the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act have been fully complied with. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree on this count. 4. In the result, the Revision Application stands rejected. 5. At this stage, Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the applicant makes a request that the execution of the decree may be stayed and reasonable time may be given to the applicant to vacate the premises. Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection to grant reasonable time. Therefore, the impugned decree shall not be executed till 31.10.2008 subject to the condition that the defendant/applicant shall file an undertaking within two weeks from this day that the defendant shall vacate the premises and shall put the plaintiff/respondent in peaceful possession of the same without any objection or obstruction on or before 31-10-2008 and that he shall not create any third party interest and he shall clear all the arrears of rent within two months from this day. If the undertaking is not filed within stipulated period, the decree may be executed any time. 5 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)