ORDER :

1. The petitioners herein are tenants. They have suffered a decree of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent.

2. In paras 17 and 18 respectively of the impugned judgment, the High Court has observed thus:-

"17). The next point for consideration is applicability of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 12 to the present case. Section 12(3)(a) becomes applicable where the rent is payable by month and where there is no dispute about standard rent or permitted increases and where the arrears of rent are for a period of six months or more. Once these three conditions are fulfilled, the act of tenant in neglecting to pay rent within one month after receipt of demand notice mandates the Court to pass a decree for eviction. It appears that prior to 28 March 1963, the words used in Section l2(3) (a) were 'the Court may pass a decree' which are substituted by the words 'the Court shall pass a decree' by amending Act of 1963. Thus, once the conditions of Section I2(3)(a) are satisfied, no discretion is left to the Court but to pass a decree for eviction.

18). In cases other than the one covered by Section 12 (3)(a), decree for eviction cannot be passed if on the first date of hearing of the suit or before such date as the Court may fix, the tenant deposits the arrears of standard rent and permitted increases. Use of the words 'in any other case' would obviously mean a case where (i) the rent is not payable by a month, (ii) the dispute exists regarding standard rent or permitted increases, (iii) the arrears of rent are in respect of the period not exceeding period of six months. This is the reason My Mr. Joshi has attempted to suggest that the rent was not payable by month in the present case. His contention is premised on demand made by Plaintiffs for education cess of 60 paise in the notice. ... (emphasis added)"

3. The High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners herein thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the courts below.

4. The High Court has granted 12 weeks time to the petitioners to vacate the premises.

5. As rightly observed by the High Court, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Raju Kakara Shetty v. Ramesh Prataprao Shirole and Another reported in (1991) 1 SCC 570, wherein this Court has observed as under:

"It is, therefore, obvious that the landlord has a statutory right to recover the amount of education cess paid by him in respect of the demised premises from the tenant-occupant and such recovery shall not be an unlawful increase under of Section 7 of the Act but would squarely fall within the expression 'permitted increases' as defined by Section 5(7) of the Act. This statutory right to recover the amount of education cess in respect of the demised premises from the occupant tenant can be quantified by agreement of parties so long as the amount quantified does not exceed the total amount actually paid by the owner by way of education cess. In the present case, it is nobody's contention that the amount of Rs 120 per month payable by way of education cess and other taxes was in excess of the amount actually payable under the relevant statutes to the local authority. The Gujarat High Court has taken a consistent view that where the tenant is obliged under the terms of the tenancy or by virtue of the statute to pay the tax dues to the landlord, since such taxes which form part of the rent are payable annually the case ceases to be governed by Section 12(3)(a) and falls within the purview of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. In Maheshwari Mills Ltd. [(1962) 3 Guj LR 574] under the terms of the tenancy the tena