12-CRA-778-2015.docx 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. 2. This civil revision application is filed by the heirs and 1/5 rrpillai RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2026.10.03 13:07:48 +0530 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 31st March 2001 itself was invalid. He relies upon the letter dated 27th 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 7th 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 27th July 1999 is regarding returning the money order sent through the tenants association. So far as the demand notice dated 23rd 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