N. H. BHATT - (1.)N. H. BHATT J. This is a revision application filed by the original defendants of the H.R.P. Civil Suit No. 1264 of 1975 dismissed in their favour by the trial Judge namely the Judge of the Small Causes Court whose judgment came to be set at naught by the appellate Bench of that Court in the respondent-landlords Regular Civil Appeal No. 113 of 1979. Being aggrieved by the said decree of eviction the original defendants have filed this revision application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act.
(2.)A few facts as found by the appellate Bench are required to be noted with precision. The tenants were in arrears of rent from 1-11-1969 and despite the notice Ex. 32 dated 14-9-1972 received by the tenants on 18-9-1972 they had failed to pay or tender the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice as held by the Appellate Bench contrary to what was found by the learned trial Judge. It is further found by the Appellate Bench that no dispute about standard rent was raised within one month of the receipt of the notice but as the taxes were demanded by the notice of demand Ex. 30 the Appellate Bench held that the case would not fall under sec. 12 of the Bombay Rent Act. The appellate Bench further found that as there was no regular payment of rent a s per the rate demanded the protection given by sec. 12(3)(b) of the Rent Act was not available to the tenants and the result was that eviction decree followed.
(3.)Now it is to be noted with pertinence that the dispute about standard rent was raised by the tenants in the written statement. It is again a finding that the standard rent came to be fixed for the first time at the rate of Rs. 8.00 plus Rs. 3.00 by way of permitted increase per month by the learned trial Judge at the time of the final conclusion. It is again an admitted position that in the memo. of appeal the land- lords had raised a dispute against the fixation of Rs. 8.00 as standard rent. presumably because according to them the standard rent should have been fixed at Rs. 10.00 plus Rs. 3/ by way of permitted increase but it appears that at the time the matter was heard before the appe- llate Bench this point was not pressed.