Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court under provisions of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act) as upheld by the first appellate Court. The premises in question is a ground floor shop that is used for running business by the petitioner. According to the petitioner said premises were let out on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per month. According to the petitioner said amount of rent was being regularly paid till the year 2000 after which the respondent-landlord stopped accepting the same. Subsequently money orders were sent by the petitioner for the months of March, April and May 2000. On 29.04.2008 notice came to be issued by the landlord calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008. The arrears were demanded at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. In response to said notice the petitioner issued a reply on 02.06.2008 stating that agreed rent of Rs. 500/- per month and that he was ready to pay the same. It was further stated that the claim for period prior to three years was barred by limitation. A cheque for amount of Rs. 18,000/- dated 09.07.2008 was remitted by the petitioner which was accepted by the landlord. This amount of Rs. 18000/- was towards arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for preceding three years. 3. As according to respondent the petitioner was in arrears of rent and as the respondent required the premises for his bonafide occupation, Civil Suit No. 250 of 2008 came to be filed on 08.08.2008. It was the specific case of the landlord that rent payable was Rs. 5000/- per month and the amount remitted by the tenant did not cover the entire arrears. The tenant filed his written statement setting up a plea that agreed rent was Rs. 500/- per month and having paid sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards arrears for preceding three years, the tenant was not in default. The claim as regards bonafide need was also denied. 4. In the trial, the tenant in his cross examination admitted the rent to be Rs. 5000/- per month. 500/- per month and having paid sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards arrears for preceding three years, the tenant was not in default. The claim as regards bonafide need was also denied. 4. In the trial, the tenant in his cross examination admitted the rent to be Rs. 5000/- per month. Hence, on 19.04.2010 the landlord filed an application under provisions of Order 15A Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). As per said application it was prayed that the tenant be directed to deposit arrears for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008 and also for the subsequent period at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. Said application was opposed by the tenant. By order dated 18.08.2010 the trial Court allowed the application and directed the tenant to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month from 01.05.2008. The amounts already paid were permitted to be adjusted. 5. The tenant being aggrieved by said order challenged the same by filing Misc. Civil Appeal. However, by order dated 10.01.2011 said appeal came to be dismissed. This Court in Writ Petition No. 1997 of 2011 did not interfere with the said order but extended the time to deposit the amount of arrears. In terms of said order the tenant deposited the sums as directed. 6. In support of the claim for eviction the landlord examined himself and his son while the tenant examined himself and another witness in support of his defence. The trial Court thereafter by its judgment dated 20.03.2012 decreed the suit holding that the tenant was in arrears of rent. It held that rent payable was Rs. 5000/- per month and by not paying the entire arrears he was liable to be evicted on said count. Eviction was also ordered on the ground of bonafide need. In appeal preferred by the tenant the first appellate Court confirmed the decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. It also affirmed the finding that rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. It however set aside the decree as passed on the ground of bonafide need. This order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 7. Shri A. A. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts erred in ordering eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. 5000/- per month. It however set aside the decree as passed on the ground of bonafide need. This order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 7. Shri A. A. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts erred in ordering eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. It was submitted that the agreed rent was Rs. 500/- per month and said fact was evident from earlier payments made and duly accepted. It was also submitted that in response to the notice issued under Section 15(2) of the said Act the tenant had paid sum of Rs. 18,000/- which covered the arrears for preceding three years. He submitted that the landlord was entitled only to amount of arrears that were legally recoverable on the date of notice. Hence, having paid the arrears for the last three years at rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. the tenant was not in arrears of rent. He submitted that the words “then due” as used in Section 15(3) of the said Act implied arrears that are legally recoverable and not those arrears that were time barred. He then submitted that the finding recorded that rent was payable at Rs. 5000/- per month was without any evidence in that regard being led by the landlord. He submitted that a stray admission of the tenant in his cross examination could not be the basis for arriving at such finding that rent payable was Rs. 5000/- per month. He referred to deposition of D. W. 2 vide Ex. 47 and submitted that rent in the adjoining premises was Rs. 1000/- per month which supported the contention of the tenant that the agreed rent was Rs. 500/- per month. It was then submitted that the landlord had moved an application under provisions of Order 15A of the Code and had sought directions against the tenant to deposit arrears. In terms of said directions the tenant had deposited all the arrears calculated at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. He, therefore, submitted having complied with aforesaid order, the provisions of Section 15(3) of the said Act stood satisfied and hence there was no occasion to evict the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. In terms of said directions the tenant had deposited all the arrears calculated at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. He, therefore, submitted having complied with aforesaid order, the provisions of Section 15(3) of the said Act stood satisfied and hence there was no occasion to evict the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. In support of his submission that arrears recoverable could only be those arrears that could be recovered in law, he relied on decision of Supreme Court in Bhimsen Gupta Vs. Bishwanath Prasad Gupta AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1770 and Kamla Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1808. He therefore submitted that the decree for eviction as passed on the ground of arrears of rent was totally unwarranted. 8. On the other hand Shri R. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed aforesaid submissions and urged that by failing to clear all arrears as demanded by the notice dated 29.04.2008, the tenant was in arrears of rent. He submitted that the tenant was liable to pay the entire amount due on the date of notice and it was the liability of the tenant even to pay rent that was otherwise time barred. He further submitted that the tenant having admitted in his cross examination that the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month, it was not open for the tenant to urge that the rent was Rs. 500/- per month. He then submitted that deposit of arrears in terms of directions issued under provisions of Order 15A of the Code would not amount to complying with requirements of provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act. Without prejudice he submitted that even if the rent was payable at Rs. 500/- per month, by paying arrears only for the last three years there was non-compliance of the demand as made in the notice. He also submitted that it was the duty of the tenant to regularly deposit the rent during pendency of the proceedings. It was only after the trial Court passed orders on the application preferred by the landlord that the amounts came to be deposited. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason what so ever to interfere with the decree for eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent. It was only after the trial Court passed orders on the application preferred by the landlord that the amounts came to be deposited. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason what so ever to interfere with the decree for eviction passed on the ground of arrears of rent. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following judgments: 1] Mranalini B. Shah and another Vs. Bapalal Mohanlal Shah (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 251; 2] Narayan Ganpat Bhoite Vs. Smt. Rampyari Suchitram Gupta since deceased through heirs Hariprasad Surajbally Gupta and others 2001(3) Maharashtra Law Journal 234; 3] Rajinder Kumar Joshi Vs. Veena Rani AIR 1991 Supreme Court 259; 4] Sriniwas Babulal Vs. Ramakant s/o Shivnarayan Jaiswal 2011(2) Maharashtra Law Journal 156; 5] Central Bank of India Bombay Vs. Sion Bakers and Confectioners Private Ltd. Bombay and others 2008(5) Maharashtra Law Journal 772; 6] Judgment of this Court in PrabhakarVenkobaji Manekar Vs. Surendra Dinanath Sharma dated 10.07.2013. 9. I have carefully considered aforesaid submissions. The following questions require adjudication in the light of aforesaid submissions: 1] Whether the tenant in response to the notice issued under provisions of Section 15(2) of the said Act is liable to pay arrears that are lawfully recoverable or whether the arrears “then due” would cover arrears that are otherwise time barred? 2] Whether the tenant can take advantage of compliance with directions issued under provisions of Order 15A Rule 1 of the Code to avoid eviction under provisions of Section 15(3) of the said Act? 10. The tender of rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- for the month of March to August 2000 is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that after August 2000 the tenant did not pay any amount of rent. While it is the case of the tenant that rent payable was Rs. 500/- per month, according to the landlord rent payable was at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. The demand as made in the notice dated 29.04.2008 is for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. In response thereto the tenant has paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- by calculating the arrears at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for preceding three years. 5000/- per month. The demand as made in the notice dated 29.04.2008 is for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. In response thereto the tenant has paid a sum of Rs. 18,000/- by calculating the arrears at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for preceding three years. If it is held that there is due compliance of notice issued under provisions of Section 15(2) of the said Act, then there would be no cause to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent. Hence said aspect of the matter would have to be first considered. 11. Under provisions of Section 15(1) of the said Act as long as tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay amount of standard rent and permitted increases, the landlord would not be entitled to recover possession of the premises on the ground of arrears of rent. It is well settled that under Rent Control legislation if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the statute then he must strictly comply with requirement of said statute. In Atmaram Vs. Shakuntala Rani (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211 in para 19 it was observed as under: “19. It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the view that in the Rent Control legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision.” Accordingly to learned counsel for the petitioner the tenant having paid the amount of arrears that were lawfully payable, it could not be said that he was in arrears of rent after such payment. According to him if the arrears prior to period of three years were not legally recoverable then tenant could not be evicted on the ground that he had not paid arrears for such period. As recovery for said period was barred by the law of limitation, same would not give a cause of action to the landlord to seek eviction on that count. As recovery for said period was barred by the law of limitation, same would not give a cause of action to the landlord to seek eviction on that count. It is to be noted that the expression used in Section 15(3) of the said Act is arrears “then due”. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Bhimsen Gupta (supra), the expression “lawfully payable” as used in Section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1983 was considered. Similarly in Kamala Bakshi (supra) the expression “arrears of rent legally recoverable, as appearing in Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were under consideration. 12. The expression “then due” was used in the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which stood repealed as a result of said Act coming into force. Considering similar arguments as advanced that if the amounts that were claimed to be due could not be recovered on account of bar of limitation, then the tenant could not be evicted for being in arrears of such dues, learned Single Judge in Karamchand Deoji Sanghavi Vs. Tulshiram Kalu Kumawat 1992 Maharashtra Law Journal 560, held that if the tenant intended to seek protection from eviction then the entire amount of arrears even if time barred were required to be paid. It was held that the provisions of Section 12 of the Bombay Rent Act did not alter the entitlement of the landlord in the light of law of limitation. In Sriniwas Babulal (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent it was held that the demand of time barred rent in a notice issued under Section 15 of the said Act was not fatal and it was incumbent on the tenant to pay even time barred arrears. It is, therefore, clear that the expression “then due” will have to be construed to include amount of arrears that were due and payable disregarding the fact that part thereof had become time barred. In Khadi Gram Udyog Trust Vs. It is, therefore, clear that the expression “then due” will have to be construed to include amount of arrears that were due and payable disregarding the fact that part thereof had become time barred. In Khadi Gram Udyog Trust Vs. Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir Sarasiya Ghat, Kanpur (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 44, it was held by the Supreme Court that even if the remedy was barred, the debt was not extinguished and if the tenant wanted to seek benefit of the statute then for avoiding the decree of eviction, the amounts due were required to be paid. Hence, the expression “then due” in Section 15(3) of the said Act would include the amount of arrears even prior to three years of such notice. 13. In this background if the response of the tenant to the notice dated 29.04.2008 is considered, he has taken a stand that demand as made was barred by limitation and hence he had restricted the payment of arrears only for the preceding three years. It is to be noted that in his cross examination he had stated that there was no evidence to show payment of rent from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008. Hence, even without going into the aspect whether rent was payable at Rs. 5000/- as urged by the landlord or Rs. 500/- as urged by the tenant, on the own showing of the tenant he had not paid the entire arrears as demanded for period of about eight years even at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. It is, therefore, clear that there is failure to comply with the demand as made by the notice issued under Section 15(2) of the said Act. Hence, the finding recorded that tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent cannot be faulted with. 14. 500/- per month. It is, therefore, clear that there is failure to comply with the demand as made by the notice issued under Section 15(2) of the said Act. Hence, the finding recorded that tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent cannot be faulted with. 14. As regards the submission that by complying with the directions issued under provisions of Order 15A Rule 1 of the Code the tenant was not liable to be evicted, it is to be noted that under the provisions of Section 15(3) of the said Act within a period of 90 days from the date of service of summons, the tenant is required to pay in Court the amount of standard rent and permitted increases along with simple interest on the amount of arrears at 15% p. a. The order passed under provisions of Order 15A Rule 1 of the Code is dated 18.08.2010, while the suit was filed on 08.08.2008. Hence, after period of 90 days from service of summons the requirements of Section 15(3) of the said Act were not duly complied with. It is also necessary to note that under provisions of Order 15A Rule 3 of the Code, deposit of amounts under this provision do not have the effect of prejudicing the claim of the plaintiff and its receipt by the plaintiff cannot be treated as a waiver of notice of termination. In the light of this clear provision, the claim of the plaintiff-landlord cannot be prejudiced by such deposit. It is also to be noted that provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act require the tenant to voluntarily deposit the amounts referred to therein and it is not for the landlord in a suit for eviction to call upon the tenant to deposit all arrears after such suit is filed. On the contrary the same would reflect on the conduct of the tenant in firstly not depositing the arrears as required under Section 15(3) of the said Act and secondly, such deposit at the instance of the landlord cannot have the effect of prejudicing the case of the landlord himself. On the contrary, accepting said submission would have the effect of granting premium to the tenant who is in arrears of rent. On the contrary, accepting said submission would have the effect of granting premium to the tenant who is in arrears of rent. Hence, it is held that in the facts of the present case due compliance with provisions of Order 15A Rule 1 of the said Code would not have the effect of wiping out the arrears of rent so as to avoid the decree for eviction. 15. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has been found to be in arrears of rent in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act. The eviction as ordered on said count is therefore in accordance with law. Hence, there is no case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. 16. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time till 31.03.2016 to vacate the suit premises on the ground that he is operating a liquor shop under a license therein. Said request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Considering the facts of the present case and that eviction has been directed only on the ground of arrears of rent, time to vacate the premises till 31.03.2016 is granted subject to the petitioner clearing all arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month within a period of four weeks from today. Similarly, the petitioner shall undertake to pay occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month till 31.03.2016. He shall also undertake not to alienate or create third party rights in the suit property. Such undertaking be filed within a period of two weeks from today. On such undertaking being filed, the petitioner would be entitled to occupy the suit premises till 31.03.2016.