JUDGMENT

The appellant is the landlord. The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 211/ 72 dated 25-3-1975. He filed an application u / S. 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Act) for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he was in arrears of the rent and also permitted increases. Though notice was issued to the respondent, he did not pay the rent and that, therefore, he is liable for ejectment. The appellant issued two notices one on January 8, 1955 and second notice on February 9, 1959. For both the notices, the respondent issued the reply on January 31, 1955 and February 25, 1959 respectively. Therein the tenant has specifically disputed the standard rent and also stated that there was no permitted increases of the rent. Immediately after the filing of the application and receipt of the notices the tenant had deposited all the arrears including permitted increases as claimed by the respondent and thereafter an application under Section II of the Act was filed for fixation of the standard rent and also permitted increases. All the three courts found as a fact that the respondent had paid all the permitted increases to the Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad. As regards the standard rent, it is found by the High Court that in the Rent Controllers Court before the appellate authority as well as the High Court, while the revision was pending in the High Court, he was regularly depositing the standard rent. As an abundant caution, the tenant also filed in the record all the deposits made by him from time to time which are part of the record in this Court at pages 300-306. Thus, it is clear that the tenant had been paying the rent from the date of the receipt of the notices in the eviction petition and has been continuing to deposit the same pending disposal of the litigation.

2. The sole question that arises for our consideration is whether the case falls under Section 12(3)(a) or (b). Section 12(3)(a) and (b) read as under:

"12(3)(a). Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), the Court may pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession.

(b) In any other case, no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if, on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the Court may fix, the tenant pays or tenders In Court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the Court."

This Court in Harbanslal Jagmohandas v. Prabhudas Shiv Lal, (1976) 3 SCR 628: construing the provisions of the Act and in view of the difference of opinion between the High Court of Bombay and the High Court of Gujarat held that the view of the Gujarat High Court is the correct law. The Gujarat High Court held that the tenant on receipt of the notice from the landlord claiming arrears of rent and also permitted increases unless disputes the same within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 12(3)(a) of the Act. The Bombay High Courts view was that he could raise the dispute in his written statement, which view was not accepted. Therefore, on the basis of this ratio, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the tenant shall also file an application for fixation of the standard rent or permitted increases under Section 11 within one month. Unless he does it, he is not entitled to the benefit of S. 12(3)(a). In