13-CRA-136-2017.docx 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. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 1/6 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2026.09.09 11:31:12 +0530 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 30th 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 30th 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