IMPORTANT POINT
Timely application and deposit of rent, even if slightly delayed due to holidays, fulfill statutory requirements preventing eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is invoked to set up a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 26 February 2016 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.375/543 of 2003. The Small Causes Court has decreed the Suit on the ground of arrears of rent by rejecting the grounds of illegal sub-letting, erection of permanent structure and bonafide requirement. The Applicants/Defendants filed Appeal No.222 of 2016 before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, which has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 5 May 2022, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Application.

2. Since all other grounds for eviction have been rejected and the Suit is decreed only on the ground of arrears of rent, it needs to be seen whether the Defendants were in arrears of rent as on the date of filing of the Suit by not complying with the notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act (the MRC Act) served by the Plaintiff- landlord and whether the Defendants failed to avail the second opportunity of depositing the rent, interest and costs within a period of 90 days from the date of service of suit summons under Section 15(3) of the MRC Act.

3. I have heard Ms. Surve, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicants, who would submit that Revision Applicants have deposited the entire arrears of rent, costs and interest within a period of 90 days as provided under Section 15(3) of the MRC Act and therefore decree for eviction could not have been passed on the ground of arrears of rent. She would submit that the suit summons was served on Defendant No.1 on 2 April 2005 and on Defendant No.2 on 25 April 2003. That the application for deposit of rent, costs and interest was immediately filed on 3 May 2005. However, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Bench have erroneously considered the date of filing of the said application as 10 October 2005 thereby rendering their decisions perverse. That in pursuance of application filed on 3 May 2005, the Small Causes Court directed payment of arrears of rent, interest and costs of the Suit on or before 15 November 2005. That the deposit of the said amount was made by Defendant on 16 November 2005. She would rely upon Section 11 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904 in support of her contention that if an act which was required to be done on 15 November 2005 could not be done on account of holiday on 15 November 2005, and since the same has been done on 16 November 2005, the same is required to have been done on 15 November 2005 itself. She also relied upon judgment of Apex Court in M/s. Natwarlal Shamaldas & Co. V/s. Siloo J. Khan, Spl. C.A. No.1565/72 decided on 4/2/1976 and Mohan Laxman Hede V/s. Noormohamed Adam Shaikh, 1988 (2) SCC 481 in support of her contention that so long as rent is deposited with reasonable punctuality the decree for eviction cannot be passed.

4. The Revision Application is opposed by Mr. Haridas, the learned counsel appearing for the original Plaintiff. He would submit that what is mandated under provisions of Section 15(3) is ‘deposit’ of arrears of rent, interest and costs. That in the present case, it is an admitted position that such a deposit was not made within a period of 90 days. He would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Ganpat Ladha V/s. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, AIR 78 SC 955 in support of his contention that mandatory period prescribed by the statute cannot be extended by use of discretion of the Court. He would also rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Yusufbhai Noormohammed Jodhpurwalal V/s. Mohmmed Sabir Ibrahim Byavarwala, (2015) 6 SCC 526 as well as judgement of this Court in Chandiram S/o. Dariyanumal Ahuja V/s. Akola Zilla Shram Wahatuk Sahakari Sanstha in support of the same contention. He would also rely upon judgment of this Court in Laxman S/o. Ghulji Upadhye Vs. Dr.