SHRI. SADASHIV SONU CHIPLUNKAR DECEASEDversusSHRI ASHOK PRABHAKAR MASTAKAR AND ORS

                                                                             12-CRA-778-2015.docx


               rrpillai            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 778 OF 2015

                              Shri Sadashiv Sonu                    …   Applicants
                              Chiplunkar (Deceased) and Others
                                   Vs.
                              Shri Ashok Prabhakar                  …   Respondents
                              Mastakar and Others


                              Mr. Saiprasad Dudhane i/b. Mr. M. A. Dudhane for the
                              Applicant Nos. 1(c) and 1(d).
                              Mr. Prasad M. Gaonkar for the Respondent No. 1.

                                                CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                                DATE :    30th SEPTEMBER 2026

                              ORDER :


                              1.    Learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave to

                              delete the name of applicant no. 1(b). He submits that the

                              applicant no. 1(b) has expired and his heirs and legal

                              representatives are already on record in a different capacity

                              as applicant nos. 1(a), 1(c) and 1(d). Hence, leave granted to

                              delete applicant no.1(b). Amendment to be carried out

                              forthwith in the court.


           Digitally signed   2.    This civil revision application is filed by the heirs and
           by
           RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH     PILLAI
PILLAI     Date:
           2026.10.03
           13:07:48
           +0530
                                                              1/5
                                                 12-CRA-778-2015.docx


legal representatives of the original defendant to challenge

the concurrent judgments and decrees for eviction on the

ground of default. Learned counsel for the applicants submits

that much prior to the demand notice the tenant had already

forwarded rent for two months by money order through the

tenants association. However, the said money order was

returned. He therefore submits that the demand notice

seeking arrears of rent from August 1997 to 31 st March 2001

itself was invalid. He relies upon the letter dated 27 th July

1999 sent by the landlord to the President of the Tenant’s

Association returning the money order containing the rent

amount. He submits that the procedure followed by all the

tenants was to deposit the rent with the tenants association

and the same was forwarded to the landlord. He therefore

submits that the demand notice itself was invalid. Hence, the

suit filed based on an invalid demand notice was not

maintainable and the landlord was not entitled to seek

eviction based on an invalid notice.


3.    Learned counsel for the applicants therefore submits

that the very basis for filing the suit for eviction under Section

15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”)



                               2/5
                                              12-CRA-778-2015.docx


was an invalid notice of demand. Hence, the impugned

judgments and decree for eviction would not be sustainable,

and the same would require interference in this civil revision

application.


4.    Learned counsel for the respondents supports the

impugned judgments and decrees. He submits that the

amount sent by the association to the landlord was returned

as there was no clarity regarding the amount sent towards

the respective tenants. He submits that the demand notice

was duly served and the same was replied on 7 th November

2001 along with pay order for Rs. 1560/- which was not as

per the standard rent demanded by the landlord through the

demand notice dated 23rd May 2001. He therefore submits

that the said pay order was returned to the tenant.


5.    He further submits that no attempts were made by the

tenant to make a payment towards the demanded amount or

file standard rent application. Even after service of suit

summons no attempts were made by the tenant to deposit

the rent amount along with the interest. Hence, both the

courts have rightly passed the decree for eviction on the

ground of default.


                              3/5
                                                12-CRA-778-2015.docx


6.     I   have perused the papers of the civil revision

application. The letter issued by the landlord on 27 th July

1999 is regarding returning the money order sent through the

tenants association. So far as the demand notice dated 23 rd

May 2001 is concerned, the same is admittedly served upon

tenant and it was also replied on 7th November 2001.

Although the pay order sent along with the reply was

returned by the landlord, there is no dispute that the tenant

had never attempted either to make payment of the

demanded amount or file any standard rent application. Even

after the suit summons was served, the tenant did not make

any attempt to file a standard rent application or pay the

standard rent and permitted increases along with the interest

within 90 days from the date of service of summons. Hence,

in view of this admitted facts both the courts have rightly held

that the landlord is entitled to a decree of eviction in view of

Section 15(3) of the Rent Act.


7.    In view of the aforesaid admitted facts regarding the

demand notice and no amount paid as required under sub-

section (3) of Section 15 of the Rent Act the judgments and

decrees would not warrant any interference. To avoid decree



                                 4/5
                                                   12-CRA-778-2015.docx


of eviction on the ground of default it is obligatory on the part

of the tenant to make payments towards the demanded

amount within 90 days from the date of service of summons

or file an application for standard rent and make payment as

per the order passed in standard rent application. In the

present case, no such attempts were made by the tenant.

Hence, no interference is called for in this civil revision

application.


8.    There is no jurisdictional error or any other manifest

error in the reasons recorded in the impugned judgments

warranting any interference in exercise of powers under

Section 115 of CPC.


9.    The civil revision application is devoid of merit. Hence,

the civil revision application is dismissed.




                                               [GAURI GODSE, J.]




                               5/5