ORDER :

1. The appellant before us is the landlord. Respondent No. 1 is the tenant and respondent No. 2 is the erstwhile landlord.

2. On an earlier occasion, an application was filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondent No.1 for fixation of the standard rent on the file of the Additional Small Causes Court, Surat in HRP Application No.600 of 1976. An order was passed with the consent of the parties, fixing the standard rent at Rs.50/- per month in HRP Application No.600/1976, on 01.07.1976, which has already attained finality inter-se the parties.

3. Respondent No.1, being the tenant who consented to the fixation of standard rent at Rs.50/- per month in the aforesaid order, defaulted in the payment of rent from 01.06.1982.

4. Accordingly, a legal notice was issued to respondent No.1 on 09.12.1983 by the erstwhile landlord, while acknowledging the fact that the default in the payment of rent was only from 01.06.1982 and, therefore, he was duly complying with the payment of rent at Rs.50/- per month as agreed upon since 1976, until then.

5. Strangely, for the very first time, the respondent No.1 disputed the standard rent of Rs.50/-per month in his reply to the legal notice on 24.12.1983. However, as mandated under Explanation I to Section 12 of the BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), appropriate application was not filed by respondent No.1 before the Court for the fixation of the standard rent after the issuance of the legal notice.

6. Under those circumstances, the erstwhile landlord, namely, respondent No.2 filed a suit for eviction bearing Suit No.98/1984. The Trial Court passed a decree for eviction inter alia holding that there was no compliance of the statutory mandate, in view of the denial made by respondent No.1 in the reply notice and the fact that there was a default in the payment of rent. The appeal filed by respondent No.1 also met with the same result. However, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court, by the impugned judgment, while placing reliance upon the decision rendered in Devkaran Nenshi Tanna (Dead) By Lrs. v. Manharlal Nenshi and Another - (1994) 5 SCC 681, wherein it was held that the dispute regarding the rent fixed can be raised at any point of time, was pleased to set aside the concurrent judgments rendered by both the Courts.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been filed before us by the appellant-landlord.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on facts, there is no dispute with respect to both, the non-filing of the application by respondent No.1 as mandated under the Act and the non-payment of rent by respondent No.1. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, has grossly exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it while passing the impugned judgment. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment will have to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, namely, the respondent No.1 submits that there was a specific denial in the reply notice, a fact which has been duly taken note of by the High Court. In such view of the matter, there is due compliance of Section 12 (3)(a) of the Act and, therefore, there is no need for any interference with the impugned judgment.

10. We would like to place on record the relevant provisions of the Act:

12(1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenan