Tenant must comply with statutory deposit requirements under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, including interest and costs, to avoid eviction.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to set up a challenged to the judgment and decree dated 24 March 2022 passed by Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Applicant's Appeal No. 93 of 2019 and confirming the eviction decree dated 11 March 2019 passed by the Learned Judge of the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 113/355 of 1994.

2. I have heard Mr. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and Vinay Ashok Dwivedi-Respondent No.1a in person. I have considered the submissions canvassed by them and have also gone through the findings recorded by the Trial and the Appellate Courts as well as the documents and evidence placed on record.

3. It appears that the suit was initially filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of non-user, change of user, default in payment of rent, unauthorized additions and alterations, acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation and commission of acts contrary to Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Trial Court accepted the grounds of non-user, change of user, default in payment of rent, unauthorized additions and alterations and acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation. The Trial Court however rejected the ground of commission of acts contrary to provisions of Section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). The Trial Court directed the Applicant/Defendant to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff with further direction for conduct of enquiry into mesne profit under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. The Applicant/Defendant challenged eviction decree dated 11 March 2019 before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. She has partly succeeded in her Appeal as the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has rejected the grounds of non-user, change of user and unauthorized additions and alterations. The eviction decree is ultimately sustained by the Appellate Court on twin grounds of default in payment of rent and acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation. Applicant/Defendant has challenged the decree passed by the Appellate Bench directing her eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent and acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation in the present Revision Application.

5. So far as the ground of default in payment of rent is concerned, it appears that demand notice as required under Section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act was served on the Defendant, demanding the arrears of rent from March 1993 onwards. It appears that the cheque was handed over to the Plaintiffs/Landlords dated 21 September 1993 of Rs.1620/- towards arrears of rent. The cheque was however dishonored. Mr. Chaturvedi has submitted that the said cheque was never drawn by the Applicant/Defendant and that therefore the inference of default in payment of rent cannot be drawn in the present case. He would also dispute service of the demand notice on the Defendant-Tenant. However, both the Courts have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the Demand Notice dated 10 August 1993 has been served on the Defendant-Tenant. I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the said finding of fact by instituting a fresh enquiry into the aspect of service of the demand notice by reappreciating the evidence.

6. The Defendant thus failed to avail the first opportunity of making good the default after service of the demand notice. Under provisions of S