MR SUDHAKAR ATMARAM PATILversusMR ASHOK PRABHAKAR MASTAKAR AND ANR

                                                                     13-CRA-136-2017.docx


            rrpillai         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 136 OF 2017


                        Mr. Sudhakar Atmaram Patil              …    Applicant
                             Vs.
                        Mr. Ashok Prabhakar Mastakar            …    Respondents
                        and Another


                        Mr.Shashank C.Thatte for the Applicant in the second
                        session.
                        Mr. Prasad Gaonkar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                                               CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                               DATE :       2nd SEPTEMBER 2026

                        ORDER :


                        First Session:


                        1.    On the last date, the civil revision application was

                        adjourned as a last chance to the learned advocate for the

                        applicant. Today, when the application was called out, none

                        appeared for the applicant.


                        2.    The civil revision application is dismissed for non-

                        prosecution.

           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJESHWARI                                          [GAURI GODSE, J.]
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH     PILLAI
PILLAI     Date:
           2026.09.09
           11:31:12
           +0530
                                                      1/6
                                                  13-CRA-136-2017.docx


Second Session:


3.    In the second session, learned counsel for the

applicant mentioned the matter and requested to restore the

civil revision application. At his oral request, the civil revision

application is restored, and the learned advocate for the

applicant is called upon to argue the matter on merits.


4.    The original tenant filed this civil revision application to

challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees for eviction

granted on the ground of default and addition and alteration

of a permanent nature without the landlord's permission.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, by an

application, the defendant had applied for permission to

deposit the arrears of rent. The application was allowed on

11th July 2005 and time was granted till 30 th July 2005 to

deposit the entire arrears of rent. He submits that the amount

was deposited on 13th July 2006, which is reflected in the

deposit register of the trial court. He submits that thereafter

the defendant continuously deposited the amount in the

court. However, unfortunately, the appellate court has not

considered the submissions regarding the deposits made

pursuant to the order passed by the trial court.


                                2/6
                                              13-CRA-136-2017.docx


5.     On the ground of permanent alteration, learned

counsel for the applicant submits that the mezzanine floor, as

alleged, was never constructed, and that what was

constructed was a loft with the erstwhile landlord's

permission. He relies upon permission produced on record.

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the

document was wrongly marked as Article, though it should

have been admitted in evidence. He submits that the copy of

the written consent marked as Article-Y1 was issued by the

erstwhile company, which was the landlord, and thus, as a

public document, it should have been admitted in evidence.

He submits that the defendant also relied upon a permission

letter granted to another tenant by the erstwhile landlord. It

was a specimen of the permission granted to all the tenants

to carry out repairs. He thus submits that the repairs were

carried out with the consent of the erstwhile landlord. Both

courts erred in not properly appreciating the evidence on

record. He therefore submits that the eviction decree is not

sustainable on both grounds.


6.   Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the

findings recorded by both the courts. He submits that



                               3/6
                                              13-CRA-136-2017.docx


admittedly, the demand notice was never responded to and

was never complied with. The demanded amount, with

interest, was not deposited within 90 days from the date of

service of summons. Hence, there is no ground to interfere

with the decree for eviction on the ground of default. So far

as carrying out permanent alterations is concerned, both

courts have relied on the defendant's admission in cross-

examination, thereby admitting that he constructed a

concrete slab supported by channels, erected a roof of

Mangalore tiles, and raised a mezzanine floor. He therefore

submits that in view of the admission given by the defendant,

even the decree on the ground of permanent alteration would

not warrant any interference.


7.   On the point of consent of the erstwhile landlord, he

submits that even if the consent letter relied upon by the

defendant is taken into consideration, the same pertains only

to repair of roof and therefore replacing the roof with

permanent concrete construction would not amount to

carrying out construction with prior consent of the erstwhile

landlord. He therefore submits that the decree on both the

grounds would not warrant any interference.



                                4/6
                                                13-CRA-136-2017.docx


8.    I have perused the papers. The demand notice is

served upon the defendant. No efforts have been made to

deposit the amount as required under Section 15 of the

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”). Both the

courts have therefore refused to grant any protection as the

demand notice was not complied with. The applicant's

arguments that the deposit made on 30 th July 2006 should

have been taken into consideration have no substance. It is

well settled legal principle that to avoid a decree on the

ground of default, the tenant is under obligation to comply

with the requirements as contemplated under Section 15 of

the Rent Act by depositing the amount within 90 days of

service of summons. Hence, in the absence of any efforts

made within the said period, the arguments raised on behalf

of the petitioner on the time granted by the trial court would

not be of any assistance to avoid the decree on the ground of

default.


9.    Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly

pointed out the findings recorded in the impugned judgments.

The trial court has in detail discussed the construction carried

out by the defendant and the admissions showing that he



                              5/6
                                                13-CRA-136-2017.docx


carried out concrete construction of a permanent nature

without any permission. The appeal court has re-examined

the entire evidence and confirmed the trial court’s decree.

The permission letter relied upon by the defendant is rightly

not admitted in evidence, as reflected in the reasons

recorded by the trial court as well as the appeal court in

paragraphs 29 to 32 of the judgment. Even otherwise, the

defendant has admitted that he has replaced the Mangalore

tiles with concrete construction of the roof and also raised a

mezzanine floor. Hence, the permission for repairs relied

upon by the defendant would not be of any relevance in view

of the admission given by the defendant.


10.    Hence, in view of the concurrent findings of facts

recorded by both the courts, no interference is warranted in

the eviction decree. I do not find any jurisdictional error or

any other manifest error in the reasons recorded by both the

courts warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908. The civil revision application is

devoid of any merit.


11.   The civil revision application is therefore dismissed.


                                           [GAURI GODSE, J.]

                              6/6