M.P.THAKKAR - (1.)The sole question agitated in this revisional application under sec. 29 of the Bombay Rents Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act is as to whether the petitioner-landlord is entitled to a decree for eviction under sec. 12(3) (b) of the Act against the respondent-tenant on account of his alleged failure to deposit the standard rent due on the date of the first hearing and on account of his alleged failure to continue to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent till the final decision of the suit.
(2.)On May 2 1965 the petitioner-landlord demised to the respondent - tenant a shop bearing Gram Panchayat No. D-569 and D-517 situated in Lavar Wada Locality in Balasinor at a contractual rent of Rs. 30/per month. Within five months of the creation of the tenancy the petitioner-landlord began to refuse to accept the rent offered by the respondent-tenant. Money Orders were sent by the tenant on October 12 1965 November 4 1965 and December 12 1965 The landlord refused to accept these Money Orders (in paragraph 19 of his deposition the petitioner-landlord has admitted that he refused the Money Orders because he wanted the possession of the property himself and wanted to evict the tenant) By a notice dated February 26 1966 the plaintiff-landlord terminated the tenancy and instituted the suit (ultimately giving rise to the present petition for eviction - Eviction was sought on numerous grounds. It was claimed by the petitioner-landlord that he required the premises rented by him to the respondent only a couple of months back reasonably and bona fide for his personal use. He also claimed a decree for possession on the ground of non-payment of rent for a period exceeding six months (even though admittedly rent in arrears did not exceed a period of five months and even this much had fallen in arrears because the landlord refused to accept the rent). The trial Court disbelieved the case as regards his requirement for personal use in a bona fide and reasonable manner and held that the landlord did not so require the premises. But the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for eviction on the ground that the tenant had not deposited the rent in arrears as required by sec. 12(3) (b) of the Act on the first date of hearing i. e. on July 30 1966 on which day issues were framed by the trial Court. According to the learned trial Judge the sum due was Rs. 300 for a period of 10 months from September 1 1965 till July 30 1966 It was overlooked by the learned trial Judge that the rent for the month of July 1966 would fall due on the first day of August 1966 apart from the fact that July consisted of 31 days and the month itself would come to a close on 31st July 1966 The learned Judge was of the view that the rent for a fraction of the month of July became due on July 30 1966 i. e. on the day on which the issues were framed. In this view of the matter the learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit for eviction. The tenant approached the District Court at Nadiad by way of Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1967 and questioned the legality and validity of the decree for eviction passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned Judge who heard the appeal came to the conclusion that rent for the month of July 1966 would become due 2 days later on August 1 1966 and that it could not be said to be due on July 30 1966 which was the first date of hearing. In this view of the matter he set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit for eviction. It may be mentioned for the sake of record that it was inter alia argued before the learned Judge hearing the appeal that the tenant was not entitled to protection of sec. 12(3)(b) of the Act inasmuch as in the submission of the landlord the tenant had failed to regularly deposit the rent till the final decision of the suit. No such contention was raised in the trial Court but the argument was advanced for the first time in the lower appellate Court. The learned appellate Judge negatived this contention as well relying on Harnamsing Lalsing v. Gangaram Itchharam 9 G. L. R. 323. Thereupon the landlord preferred the present revision contending that the decision rendered by the learned Appellate Judge was not in accordance with law.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following submissions in support of this petition :
(1) That the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that rent for the fraction of the month of July 1966 was not due till August 1 1966 (2) That even if the amount then due was deposited on the first date of hearing on July 30 1966 the tenant was not entitled to the protection of sec. 13(1) (b) inasmuch as according to the petitioner the tenant had failed to deposit regularly the rent due subsequent to the date of the first hearing till the date of the disposal of the suit.

;