11-CRA-646-2015.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2015 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 26th March 2002 claiming arrears of rent from January 1987 up to February 2002. The suit was filed on 10th 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 27th November 1987, and an amount of Rs. 25/- per month was 1/5 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:39974 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 21st 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 22nd January 2003 and an amount of Rs. 2,350/- on 24th 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 16th 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 Surve1. 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