SMT. MARY SANTAN D'SOUZA AND ANRversusKOSUBAI MARYAN LOPES

2026:BHC-AS:39974

                                                               11-CRA-646-2015.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2015
   Swapnil
               Mary Santan D'souza and Anr.                   …Applicant
                    Vs.
               Kosubai Maryan Lopes.                          …Respondent
                                             WITH
                    INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 28310 OF 2026


               Ms. Swati H. Sagvekar for the applicant.



                                      CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                      DATE :       30th SEPTEMBER 2026

               ORDER :


               1.    The heirs and legal representatives of the original

               defendant filed this civil revision application to challenge the

               concurrent judgments and decrees for eviction on the ground

               of default. The demand notice was issued on 26 th March

               2002 claiming arrears of rent from January 1987 up to

               February 2002. The suit was filed on 10 th December 2002,

               and the summons were served on 17th December 2002.


               2.    The defendant had initially filed an application for

               fixation of standard rent, which was allowed on 27 th

               November 1987, and an amount of Rs. 25/- per month was

                                             1/5
                                               11-CRA-646-2015.docx


fixed as the standard rent. The plaintiffs claimed arrears at

the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Hence, the demand was for

an amount of Rs.18,000/-. The defendant claimed that the

amount of Rs. 4025/- at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month was

sent by money order on 21 st June 2002, i.e. after the demand

notice. However, the plaintiffs refused to accept it. After the

summons was served, the defendant had deposited the

amount of Rs. 2,000/- on 22 nd January 2003 and an amount

of Rs. 2,350/- on 24 th February 2003. However, since the

payment as required under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of

the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”) was not

complied with within the 90 days from the date of service of

summons, both the courts have held the defendant to be in

arrears of rent and granted the decree on the ground of

default.


3.    Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after

the demand notice was issued, the money order for rent at

the standard rent rate of Rs. 25/- per month was sent to the

landlord. Hence, there was no cause of action to file the suit

on the ground of arrears. She relies upon the entries in the

roznama annexed to the application. She submits that on 16 th



                              2/5
                                                    11-CRA-646-2015.docx


March 2005, the defendant was present; however, the

proceedings        were        adjourned   for   cross-examination.

Considering the defendant’s age, she could not remain

present on 19th March 2005, and on the same date the

defendant’s evidence was closed. Hence, the defendant was

unable to lead any evidence to prove that after the demand

notice, a money order was issued and therefore, there was

no cause of action to file the suit.


4.     To support her submissions, learned counsel for the

applicants relied upon the decision of this court in Madhukar

Govind Vaidya Vs. Narayan Harishchandra Surve 1. She

submits that this court has taken a view that if the amount is

paid as per the demand notice, there would not be any cause

of action to file the suit, as the tenant would not be in arrears

over six months on the date of notice and therefore, the

question of default would not arise. She further submits that

even after service of the summons, the demanded amount

was deposited within 90 days. Hence, the eviction decree on

the ground of default could not have been passed. She

therefore submits that the impugned judgments and decrees

warrant interference in this civil revision application.

1 2001 (Supp.2) Bom.C.R. 367

                                    3/5
                                              11-CRA-646-2015.docx


5.   I have perused the papers. The particulars of the dates

referred to by the learned counsel for the applicants are part

of the record, and there appears to be no dispute as to the

date of notice, its receipt, and the amounts deposited by the

defendant in the court. However, within 90 days of service of

summons, the defendant did not deposit the arrears of rent

along with interest. Although the amount was deposited as

per the standard rent fixed in the earlier standard rent

application, the compliance as contemplated in sub-section

(3) of Section 15 of the Rent Act was not satisfied. Hence,

both the courts have refused to grant any protection from

eviction to the defendant.


6.   The    amounts    deposited   by   the   defendant    are

considered by both the courts with reference to the date of

service of summons. As to the payment of rent by money

order after the notice, the defendant has not proved it with

any supporting evidence. The order closing the defendant's

evidence was never challenged. No application was made to

recall the said order and for permission to lead evidence. It

appears that even in the appeal no such attempt was made.

Hence, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for



                             4/5
                                                11-CRA-646-2015.docx


the applicant would not assist in the different facts of the

present case.


7.    It is a well-established legal principle that, to avoid the

decree for eviction on the ground of default, the tenant must

comply with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of

Section 15 of the Rent Act, i.e. the standard rent with

permitted increases, if any, along with interest is to be

tendered or paid within 90 days from the service of summons

and continue to pay the rent till disposal of the suit. In the

absence of any such compliance, no fault can be found in the

impugned judgments and decrees.


8.    The civil revision application is devoid of any merit.

Hence, the civil revision application is dismissed.


9.    In view of dismissal of the civil revision application, the

pending interim application is disposed of as infructuous.




                                           [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                               5/5