1 912-cra-141-2011.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.141 OF 2011 Smt. Kamla V. More & Others .. Applicants. V/s. Shri Yeshwant H. Kambli (since deceased) through his Legal Heirs & Others .. Respondents. Mr. R. A. Thorat, Counsel, along withMs. Meenakshi Surve, for the Applicants. None for Respondents. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocates for Applicants. 2 In a suit for eviction filed under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 on the ground of default passed on a notice of demand which was duly served on the Defendants, a decree for eviction has been passed. The Trial Court while passing a decree for eviction on 17th April, 2 912-cra-141-2011.sxw 2002 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.3833 of 1988 has found that the notice of demand was duly served. Even after deducting a sum of Rs.1500/- which was proved to have been paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs for giving consent for repairs (Exhibit 4), there was still default which remained uncured. The defence regarding payment of additional amount of Rs. 1740/- has not been accepted or proved. The issues were framed on 28th August, 1997. Application for deposit as contemplated by Section 12 (3), was made for the first time on 28th March, 2000. The amount was allowed to be deposited without prejudice and there is nothing to indicate that there is a specific order for extending the time to deposit, so as to have effect of grant of relief against forfeiture to the Defendants by extending time beyond the first date of hearing which is the date of framing issues. The deposit is, thereafter, made on 17th April, 2000. 3 The decree was challenged by filing Appeal No.474 of 2000, which is dismissed on 11th November, 2010. All the findings of Trial Court have been independently considered and upheld. No error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and no case is, therefore, made out for exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4 Civil Revision Application is summarily dismissed. 3 912-cra-141-2011.sxw 5 The Appellate Court has observed that the Plaintiff had submitted an application for getting sanction from the Competent Authority under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I. C. & R) Act, 1971 for executing the decree which was rejected on 11th March, 2003 and the Writ Petition challenging the said order as also the earlier Writ Petition No.6764 of 1998, challenging a declaration of the slum are pending in this Court. Thus, as on today, there is no threat of eviction to the Applicants. 6 At this stage, the learned Advocate for Applicants prays for grant of some time to vacate the premises. Only for considering that request, which it can be granted after hearing Respondents, issue notice to the Respondents, returnable after six weeks. In addition to service of notice through Court, the Advocate for the Applicants is also directed to serve all the Respondents with the copy of the Civil Revision Application, copy of this Order and file affidavit of service to that effect, before the returnable date. 7 It is clarified that the notice is issued only for the limited purpose as aforesaid. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)